The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 8, 2026) declined to quash the plea against Leader of Opposition (LOP) Rahul Gandhi over his alleged defamatory remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Borkar was hearing Mr. Gandhi’s plea seeking to quash Magistrate Court’s order issuing summons.
The hearing was on the plea challenging the criminal defamation complaint of local BJP member Mahesh Shrishrimal in Girgaon court in Mumbai.
The complaint was made over Mr. Gandhi’s remarks during a rally in Jaipur, Rajasthan, on August 20, 2018.
In 2021, November, Bombay High Court granted Mr. Gandhi interim relief by directing the Magistrate cCourt to defer the hearing and exempting him to personally be present for the hearing.
The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 8, 2026) declined to quash the plea against Leader of Opposition (LOP) Rahul Gandhi over his alleged defamatory remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Bombay HC Justice N.R. Borkar was hearing Mr. Gandhi’s plea seeking to quash Magistrate Court’s order issuing summons. The High Court observed that it finds “no infirmity” in the impugned order and this is “not a fit case for interference in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC”.
Justice Borkar upheld the order of lower court saying “it found no perversity and illegality in the order” and also allowed Mr. Gandhi six weeks of relief from appearing before the Girgaon Metropolitan Magistrate Court and time to challenge the ruling in the Supreme Court.
The hearing was on the plea challenging the criminal defamation complaint of local BJP member Mahesh Shrishrimal in Girgaon court in Mumbai. The complaint was made over Mr. Gandhi’s remarks during a rally in Jaipur, Rajasthan, on August 20, 2018.
In 2021, November, Bombay High Court granted Mr. Gandhi interim relief by directing the Magistrate cCourt to defer the hearing and exempting him to personally be present for the hearing.
Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola on behalf of Mr. Gandhi, argued that the complaint was politically motivated, while the Mr. Shrishrimal’s lawyer Rohan Mahadik argued that a prima facie case has been made against Mr. Gandhi with evidence and order was passed based on the evidences.
