3 min readMumbaiFeb 25, 2026 03:49 AM IST
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday concluded hearing and reserved its verdict on plea by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi challenging defamation case over his “commander-in-thief” remark against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2018.
The Court continued till pronouncement of the verdict the interim order it had passed on December 16, 2021, that deferred proceedings before magistrate court in Mumbai in the case. The court had earlier granted relief to Congress leader from personal appearance before the magistrate.
The complainant, BJP supporter Mahesh Shrishrimal, alleged that the remark made over the Rafale fighter jet deal had “hurt the sentiments of PM Modi’s supporters”.
Gandhi challenged August, 2019 order of the magistrate that took cognisance of the complaint and initiated proceedings against the Congress leader. A magistrate’s court had issued summons to Gandhi in October 2019.
Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola and advocate Kushal Mor had filed the petition to quash the defamation case before the High Court in 2021, arguing that the remark was made against Modi and the complainant was not the aggrieved party, therefore the complaint against him was not maintainable.
Gandhi argued that as per Section 499 (criminal defamation) of the Indian Penal Code, ‘political party’ is not an identifiable group of persons and therefore the complainant could not have filed the case in his representative capacity.
Gandhi claimed that no “identifiable or definte class” had been targeted in his comment and the petitioner did not have locus standi (legal standing) to initiate the complaint.
Story continues below this ad
However, Advocate General (AG) Milind Sathe for the Maharashtra government, while referring to past rulings of the Supreme Court and HCs, argued that the respondent had a locus to to file the present complaint, which “ought not to be quashed at the preliminary stage.”
Sathe further argued that the HC should not examine the evidence at this stage and come to conclusion whether offences are made out as the same can be done after the trial.
The government said that magistrate’s order disclosed he had applied his mind to the matter and was satisfied that the allegations made in the complaint constituted the offence, therefore HC should not interfere at the present stage.
A single-judge bench of Justice Nitin R Borkar then concluded the hearing and reserved its verdict, which will be passed in due course.
