The Bombay High Court today delivered a robust defense of Rahul Gandhi, the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha, in a decade-old defamation case. The court issued a stern rebuke to the complainant, an RSS functionary, stating that he was “keeping no stone unturned” to thwart the Congress leader’s “legitimate right” to a “speedy trial.”
On July 12, Justice Prithviraj K Chavan of the Bombay High Court had quashed and set aside a magistrate court order that had allowed the petitioner to belatedly introduce documents in a criminal defamation case. The detailed judgment was released on Tuesday.
The defamation case stems from a speech given by Rahul Gandhi on March 6, 2014, during an election rally in Thane district in Maharashtra. Gandhi, then Congress vice-president, allegedly implicated the RSS in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. Rajesh Kunte filed a defamation complaint, accusing Gandhi of tarnishing the RSS's reputation.
Represented by advocates Sudeep Pasbola and Kushal Mor, Gandhi argued that a previous order by another High Court bench in September 2021 had dismissed Kunte's request for the transcript of Gandhi's 2014 speech. Despite this, the magistrate allowed Kunte to present the same documents during the trial, prompting Gandhi to challenge the decision.
Justice Chavan observed that Kunte’s actions were causing unnecessary delays in the trial. He emphasised the importance of a fair and expeditious trial, as guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution, which ensures the right to a speedy trial.
“It can thus be seen that the respondent (Kunte) is keeping no stone unturned to thwart the legitimate right of the petitioner to get the complaint decided on merits as expeditiously as possible,” the judge noted.
In referencing a Supreme Court verdict, Justice Chavan reiterated that a criminal trial must be free, fair, and unbiased, maintaining public confidence in the judicial process. He criticized the magistrate court for disregarding fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence and violating previous High Court orders.