Bombay High Court Criticizes RSS Worker For "Thwarting" Rahul Gandhi's Right To Speedy Trial In Defamation Case
Narsi Benwal
16 July 2024 9:37 AM GMT
The Bombay High Court while granting relief to Rahul Gandhi last week, criticised the complainant - Rajesh Kunte, a worker of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for unnecessarily protracting the trial and thwarting the Congress leader's right to speedy trial.
The case pertains to Gandhi's statement made in a speech made in a political rally in Bhiwandi district during the 2014 general elections, wherein he allegedly accused RSS for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi.
Single-judge Justice Prithviraj Chavan had on July 12, allowed a writ petition filed by the Congress leader challenging the order of the Magistrate Court, which permitted Kunte to rely on the transcript of Gandhi's speech. The parliamentarian from Rae Bareli had contended that he cannot be compelled to admit or rely on any documents in the case.
The judge in his order made available on Tuesday, pulled up Kunte for resorting to delay tactics.
"It can be seen that the respondent No.2 (Kunte) is keeping no stone un-turned to thwart the legitimate right of the petitioner (Gandhi) to get the complaint decided on merits as expeditiously as possible in view of Article 21 of the Constitution of India which provides speedy trial. It is difficult to abstruse the conduct of the respondent No.2. Free and fair trial is a sine qua non of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is trite law that justice should not only be done but it should be seen to have been done," the judge observed in his order.
With regards to the argument that Gandhi had himself annexed the copy of his speech to a writ petition he filed challenging the summons issued to him by the Magistrate Court, single-judge said that the said annexures were only for a limited purpose of seeking to quash the case and can by no stretch of imagination be construed as an admission on behalf of the petitioner in respect of the contents therein.
The judge reiterated that Gandhi cannot be compelled to admit or deny any document.
"The right of the accused to remain silent flows from Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India and is sacrosanct in a criminal trial. He, therefore, cannot be compelled to admit or deny any document. To keep silence in respect of a document by the accused is also an expression of his fundamental right under Article 20 (3) of the Constitution of India. He cannot be compelled to be a witness against himself," the bench held.
Background:
The case pending before the Bhiwandi Magistrate Court was filed by Kunte in 2014 alleging that Gandhi delivered a defamatory speech during one of his rallies in the then elections by blaming the RSS for the killing of Mahatma Gandhi. The Magistrate had taken cognizance of the said complaint and summoned the Member of Parliament (MP) from Rae Bareli to appear before it. The summons were challenged before the High Court and in that petition, Gandhi had annexed the transcript of his speech. However, the said plea was dismissed.
Relying on the same, Kunte had argued before the Magistrate that by annexing the speech copy to the petition, Gandhi has "unambiguously" accepted the speech and its contents. However, this argument put forth by Kunte was rejected by the Magistrate Court. He then moved the High Court and his plea was dismissed by Justice Revati Mohite-Dere.
Subsequently, he filed another application before the Magistrate to let him rely on Gandhi's speech copy, which he annexed to the petition for quashing the summons. The Magistrate had allowed the said application.
Challenging the same, Gandhi filed the instant petition contending that the order of the Magistrate Court was in clear violation of a 2021 order passed by another single-judge Justice Revati Mohite-Dere, who had dismissed a similar petition filed by Kunte. In that petition, Kunte had sought admission or denial of Gandhi's alleged defamatory speech. The judge had held that an accused cannot be compelled to admit or deny annexures to their petition.
Relying on the order passed by Justice Mohite-Dere, the Congress leader contended in the instant case, that since the Magistrate has permitted the complainant to rely on this additional evidence (transcript of his speech), it would compel him to either admit or deny the said document.
Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v. State of Maharashtra & Anr.
Appearance:
Mr. Sudeep Pasbola i/b Mr. Kushal Mor a/w Mr. Rohan Chauhan,
Mr. Tanmay Karmarkar and Mr. Rishab Khot, for Petitioner.
Mr. A.A. Palkar, A.P.P, for Respondent No.1 – State.
Mr. Tapan Thatte, for Respondent No.2.
