HC criticises complainant for delaying case against Rahul Gandhi
Bombay HC criticizes delays caused by complainant in Rahul Gandhi defamation case, reaffirming his right to a speedy trial, setting aside Bhiwandi court order.
MUMBAI: While setting aside an order of the Bhiwandi court in the defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, the Bombay high court recently strongly criticised Rajesh Mahadev Kunte, the complainant, for causing unnecessary delays in the trial.
In a ruling that reaffirms Gandhi’s right to a speedy trial, Justice Prithviraj K Chavan set aside a previous order by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC) in Bhiwandi.
“It can thus be seen that respondent no. 2 is leaving no stone unturned to protract the trial on one pretext or the other,” Justice Chavan noted, underscoring the tactics employed by Kunte to prolong the litigation.
The case dated back to 2014, when Gandhi allegedly accused the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) of being involved in the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi during a speech in Bhiwandi. Gandhi had stated, “The RSS people killed Gandhiji,” which Kunte, an RSS member, claimed was false and defamatory, damaging the organisation’s reputation.
The impugned order in question was passed by the JMFC in Bhiwandi, which allowed documents - transcript of a speech that was earlier part of Gandhi’s petition in 2014 - to be exhibited without following proper legal procedures. However, Gandhi’s legal team argued that these documents were not produced in their original form and were not proven in accordance with the law of evidence.
Justice Chavan’s order emphasised that the complainant has repeatedly attempted to introduce documents into evidence without following proper legal procedures. “The learned JMFC should not have exhibited the annexures merely because it bears the seal of this court unless the same is produced in original and proved in accordance with the law of evidence,” the order stated.
Gandhi’s team challenged the JMFC’s order before the Bombay high court, arguing that the documents were improperly admitted without being authenticated. The court underscored the principle that an accused cannot be compelled to admit or deny documents presented by the prosecution. “The right of an accused to remain silent flows from Article 20(3) of the Constitution of India and is sacrosanct in a criminal trial. No court can compel or direct an accused to admit/deny any document,” the order stated.
The main challenge raised by Gandhi’s team was that the JMFC’s order violated established legal principles protecting the rights of the accused. The high court’s decision also highlighted previous rulings that protect an accused’s rights and ensure fair trial procedures.
Justice Chavan criticised the JMFC for not adhering to higher court directives, requiring documents to be proven during the trial. “The legislative intent was not to bind the accused persons or compel them to admit or deny the genuineness of the documents produced by the prosecution,” he observed.