Bombay High Court reserves order on Rahul Gandhi's plea to quash defamation case

Bombay High Court reserves judgment on Rahul Gandhi's plea to quash a defamation case related to remarks about PM Modi.

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (February 24, 2026) reserved its judgment on a petition filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking to quash a criminal defamation complaint lodged against him over his alleged remarks targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

The complaint, filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker Mahesh Shrishrimal, pertains to Mr. Gandhi’s reference to the Prime Minister as “Choro Ke Sardar” and “Commander-in-Thief”.

Justice N. R. Borkar, who heard extensive arguments from both sides, directed that the matter be listed for orders. The court also extended the interim protection granted earlier to Mr. Gandhi, shielding him from any coercive action in the case.

The complaint was originally filed before a Metropolitan Magistrate, who had issued a summons to Mr. Gandhi. Mr. Shrishrimal contended that the remarks, though ostensibly aimed at the Prime Minister, were intended to cast aspersions on the ruling party and its members, thereby lowering their reputation in public esteem. He argued that by referring to Mr. Modi as “Choro Ke Sardar” — roughly translatable as “leader of thieves” — Mr. Gandhi had effectively equated all BJP members with thieves, giving party workers the right to initiate defamation proceedings.

Challenging the maintainability of the complaint, Mr. Gandhi moved the High Court, arguing that the remarks did not specifically name any political party or its members. Senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola, representing Mr. Gandhi, submitted that the comments were not directed at an “identifiable or definite class” of people.

In the absence of a clearly identifiable group or individual who could claim to be aggrieved, the complainant lacked the locus standi to pursue the case, he argued. Mr. Pasbola further submitted that an interpretative leap by the complainant to include party workers could not form the basis of a criminal defamation action.