Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Monday extended Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's relief till January 25, 2023, in a defamation complaint pertaining to his alleged remarks -- Chowkidaar Chor Hain -- against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
A single bench of Justice Amit Borkar adjourned the hearing till January 20. The bench was hearing the plea filed by Gandhi challenging the summons issued to him by the local court. "The interim relief granted earlier shall continue till January 25, 2023," Justice Borkar said in his hearing on the case.
The defamation complaint was filed by a Mahesh Shrishrimal, who claims to be a BJP party worker, against the 'Chowkidar Chor Hain' remark that Gandhi had made against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018 over the Rafale fighter jet deal. Shrishimal had approached a local court in the matter, which in turn asked Gandhi to appear before the court. Gandhi had approached the high court challenging the summons issued to him.
During Monday's hearing, advocate Sudeep Pasbola, speaking on behalf of Rahul Gandhi, told the court this is a case where a person is claiming to be defamed by alleged comments made on the Prime Minister and therefore is not based on sound logic as per the law. The court said that the matter shall be heard on January 20.
The complainant's allegation was that in September 2018, Gandhi conducted a rally in Rajasthan where he made defamatory statements against Modi leading to the PM's trolling on media by various news channels and social media platforms. It further said that days later, Gandhi purportedly commented on a video and posted on his personal Twitter account "The sad truth about India's commander in thief."
The complainant alleged Gandhi was making "defamatory statements against Modi and by calling him 'Commander in Thief' made a direct allegation of theft against all members of the BJP and Indian citizens connected to Modi".
Gandhi stated in his petition, filed through advocate Kushal Mor, that the instant complaint was a classic example of frivolous and vexatious litigation motivated by the sole purpose of furthering the complainant's latent political agenda. He also said the complainant had no locus to file the complaint since defamation can be initiated only by the person who has been allegedly defamed.
The Congress leader had sought for quashing the magistrate's order and a stay on the pending hearing of the petition.
