Karnataka High Court Reserves Verdict On Rahul Gandhi's Plea To Quash Defamation Case By State BJP

The Karnataka High Court on Thursday (December 18) reserved verdict on Rahul Gandhi's plea seeking quashing of criminal defamation proceedings initiated against him by the State BJP over an alleged defamatory advertisement and related social media posts.

Earlier, Gandhi had told the High Court that there was no material linking him to the publication or tweets, alleged to be defamatory.

The case arises out of the Congress party's “Corruption Rate Card” advertisement which claimed that various posts and transfers under the then-BJP government carried fixed “rates” and “commissions”.

The BJP alleges that the advertisement is defamatory, false, and based on “fanciful imagination”. The complaint also takes objection to the phrase “trouble engine Sarkar”, allegedly used instead of BJP's slogan “double engine Sarkar”, contending that it was intended to malign the party's reputation ahead of elections.

During the hearing today, the counsel appearing for BJP submitted before Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav that Gandhi's name was found in the list of star campaigners for the previous election, published by Indian National Congress.

"These are all matter of trial, in the trial it can be seen whether he has nexus with advertisement or not...Anybody who reads advertisement will easily understand...it is against BJP," he said.

The court orally asked, "Is it a fact that the retweet has not been marked?"

To this counsel said, "It is there in the file. But there are provisions for marking it at the time of trial. There are provisions to summon records from Twitter (now X) under Section 91 CrPC, during trial to mark it once again. We can secure records from ECI and also from Twitter (X). These are all matter of Trial. In their quashing petition they (petitioner) have admitted that I (Rahul Gandhi) have tweeted. Admitted fact need not be proved. They only say that retweeting is not an offence".

The counsel further submitted that the quashing plea itself states that "petitioner has shared only newspaper advertisement which was already in circulation".

"This admission is sufficient to prove that he has tweeted the advertisement. In the complaint there is specific averment with regard to tweet. At the time of taking cognizance trial court has to see if prima facie case is there or not. That court has exercised properly and has issued summons," he added.

He submitted that though there is no mention of BJP directly there is indirectly a mention. "Without naming me also, if someone defames me that is an offence," he added.

He said that the advertisement shows that it is targeted against the respondent party. He further referred to explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC (defamation) and said that term person used therein would also include political party also.

He further said that in the present case the magistrate had taken sworn statements on oath of five witnesses which also included independent witnesses and based on these sworn statements, materials, the magistrate had found that there was a prima facie case.

"All grounds urged by them (petitioner) is to be decided at the time of trial," he added. He further referred to judgments and stated that the magistrate is not expected to embark upon detail discussion on merits and demerits of a case.

He further said that advertisement will be viewed by those who have purchased the newspaper or have possession of newspaper, but on Twitter everybody can see the advertisement, and the advertisement can be re-circulated.

"Publication came in the morning. Immediately he has re-tweeted it. Therefore they cannot claim that it was already in public domain. It was simultaneously published," he added.

Meanwhile senior advocate Shashi Kiran Shetty appearing for Gandhi submitted, "There is no material before your lordship or trial court that there was retweet. As on today he has not established the retweet or if people have read the retweet and it has caused defamation. It is an assumption…He says tomorrow he may call for documents...admittedly submission by respondent is that there is nothing on material today...His argument is that 'Im one of 40 star campaigners'; he could have included all the 40 for the purpose of defamation. This is not case in complaint at all. Whole complaint is based on that I am Vice President, so vicarious liability. Case has totally been shifted".

He further said that issue on whether retweet amounts to defamation is pending consideration in Supreme Court. "In this case there is no retweet at all. Proposition of law cannot be admission of a fact," he added.

He further said that the complainant is a political party and there is not even an iota of allegation against complainant in the paper publication. "Therefore basis of complaint that it is against complainant is a misnomer," he said.

He said that the paper publication does not deal with complainant at all; it talks about government.

"Political party and government is not one...They are assuming if it is government then it must be me (party). Government functions throughout, irrespective of political party which comes and goes. Minister, CM may come and go, government is always in existence...There is nothing indirectly or directly. Assuming it is opposing government, but political party cannot take up the cause. That is why it is stated that in political discourse there should be higher threshold is what courts have held...otherwise it would be virtually impossible to criticize the government.." he added.

After hearing the parties the court reserved its verdict.

Case title: Rahul Gandhi v/s Bharatiya Janata Party

Case No: CRL.P 14473/2024