Rahul faces defamation charges on 12 March
A special MP/MLA court here on Monday, scheduled for March 12, for hearing arguments in a 2018 defamation case against the Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha and Rae Bareli MP Rahul Gandhi related to his remarks against Union Home Minister Amit Shah.
Advocate Santosh Kumar Pandey, counsel for the complainant, informed that Special Judge Shubham Verma had scheduled March 12 for further arguments in the matter. The case was filed by BJP leader Vijay Mishra.
During court proceedings on February 20, Gandhi recorded his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, Pandey said. Gandhi claimed that the case was filed against him out of political vendetta and stated that he would present evidence in his defence.
“The allegations are baseless and unfounded. I have never used derogatory words against anyone, nor have I used such language with the intention of defaming anyone. A false complaint has been filed by distorting my statement,” Gandhi was quoted as saying by his lawyer, Kashi Prasad Shukla.
“The allegations have been made against me out of political malice with the aim of destroying my image and that of my party. I have never used derogatory words against anyone, nor have I used such language with the intention of defaming anyone,” Gandhi had told the court.
The complainant’s counsel added that cross-examination of the complainant, BJP leader Vijay Mishra, and two witnesses has already been completed.
The case dates back to 2018, when local BJP leader and former chairman of the District Cooperative Bank Vijay Mishra filed a defamation complaint against Gandhi, alleging that during the Karnataka elections in 2018, the Congress leader made derogatory remarks about Amit Shah.
The trial has been underway for the past five years. In December 2023, a warrant was issued against Gandhi for non-appearance before the court. He surrendered in February 2024, following which a special magistrate granted him bail on two sureties of Rs 25,000 each.
On July 26, 2024, Gandhi recorded his statement before the court, claiming innocence and terming the case a political conspiracy. Thereafter, the court directed the complainant to produce evidence in the case.
