/
Sultanpur court dismisses 2018 defamation case against Rahul Gandhi over Amit Shah remark after eight years
A special MP/MLA court in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, dismissed the criminal defamation case against Rahul Gandhi on Monday. The complaint, filed by a BJP functionary, concerned a remark about Amit Shah at a Bengaluru press conference in May 2018. The court's reasons were not given in the reports.
R
4 min
A special court for cases against MPs and MLAs in Sultanpur, Uttar Pradesh, has dismissed the criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, which had been pending since 2018. The court gave its decision on Monday, 26 October. The case concerned a remark that Gandhi was said to have made about Amit Shah, then the national president of the BJP, at a press conference in Bengaluru in May 2018. The reports available do not give the judge's name or the court's reasons.
The case and the complainant
The complaint was filed by Vijay Mishra, who was at the time a BJP district vice-president in Sultanpur and the chairman of the local District Co-operative Bank. It was brought under the law on defamation. According to the complainant's lawyer, Gandhi had referred to Shah as an accused in a murder case, which the complainant said was objectionable and defamatory. Before the decision, Mishra told a news agency that he was hopeful of justice and that the case had been going on since 2018.
Gandhi, who is the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and an MP from Uttar Pradesh's Rae Bareli, travelled from Delhi to Sultanpur to be present when the decision was given. The court had summoned him on 16 December 2023, and he was granted bail in the case in February 2024. The case thus ran for about eight years, a length that is common in the lower courts, particularly in cases in which the parties are public figures and hearings are often put off.
'Dismissed' or 'acquitted'
The reports use different words. Several describe the outcome as a dismissal of the complaint, while one reports that the court acquitted Gandhi and brought the proceedings to an end. The difference is a legal one. A dismissal usually means that the court found no ground to proceed, for instance because the complaint did not make out an offence or the complainant did not prove it. An acquittal follows a trial in which the accused is found not guilty. The exact basis can be learned only from the order, and the reports do not quote it.
No statement from the Congress has been reported in the accounts available, and the complainant's only comment is the one he made before the decision.
The Sultanpur case is one of several defamation and related cases that have been filed against Gandhi in different courts over the years. The best known is the Surat case over a remark about the 'Modi surname', in which he was convicted in 2023, a decision that cost him his seat in the Lok Sabha until the Supreme Court stayed the conviction. The Sultanpur result is of a different kind, since the case is at an end and there is no conviction to be stayed or appealed, though the complainant may still challenge the order in a higher court. It will be treated by the Congress as another sign that such cases are politically motivated, and the BJP can be expected to point out that the dismissal is not a comment on the merits of the remark.
The decision came a day after Gandhi announced a march and rally at Ramlila Maidan in Delhi on 1 November against what the Congress calls vote theft. It comes while the Congress and the BJP are trading sharp personal attacks, as the row over the remarks of the Congress president, Mallikarjun Kharge, in Patna showed. A court decision that clears Gandhi of a charge of defaming Shah gives his party a good headline in the week before its rally.
For Gandhi himself, the case had been an obligation that required him to go to a district court in Uttar Pradesh on summons, and its end removes one of the pending matters. The larger point is about how defamation law is used in Indian politics. Criminal defamation lets a private person start a case in any court where the remark was heard or reported, and politicians of all parties have used it. Whether that is the right way to settle a political remark is a question that the Supreme Court has been asked to consider, and decisions like this one are part of the debate.
R
4 min
What did you think?
