BENGALURU: Stating that a mere photograph of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on the advertisement is not sufficient to indicate that it was published at his instance with an intention to harm BJP at a time when he was neither president nor vice-president of the party, the Karnataka High Court quashed the defamation proceedings pending against him before a special court in the city on the complaint filed by the state BJP unit. The complaint was over publishing ads of “Corruption rate card” in newspapers during the 2023 Karnataka Assembly election campaign.
Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav on Tuesday cited technical reasons and a series of procedural lapses on the part of the special court for the trial of criminal cases against sitting and former MPs/MLAs before taking cognisance of the offences and issuing a summons to Rahul. It cannot be done casually, Justice Yadav said.
S Keshava Prasad, Secretary, Karnataka BJP Unit, had filed the complaint alleging defamation through newspaper advertisements on May 5, 2023.
‘Aggrieved person can’t be pol party’
The complaint was filed against the Karnataka Pradesh Congress Committee, Chief Minister Siddaramaiah, Deputy Chief Minister DK Shivakumar and Rahul Gandhi, Keshava Prasad alleged that the advertisements made false and reckless allegations, terming the then BJP government “40 per cent Commission Sarkara (government)”.
The special court issued a summons to Rahul, accused No. 4, who appeared before it on June 7, 2024, and was granted bail. He later moved the high court challenging the legality of the proceedings against him.
Allowing his petition, the high court said the continuance of the proceedings against him would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
The complainant’s counsel contended that Rahul’s tweet, in which he was stated to have posted the advertisement along with certain additional remarks, would be marked at a subsequent stage. But the court observed that such an explanation cannot cure the legal defect of not having the tweet on record to connect him with defamation when the summons was issued to him.
The court stated that the reference in the advertisement was made to constitutional functionaries and government employees being beneficiaries, and to the irregularities in government schemes. “None of the persons or entities referred to here are before this court. Accordingly, the aggrieved person in the advertisement series factually cannot be the political party,” it said.
The complainant appears to indicate that its state unit, the government formed by it (BJP Sarkar) and the complainant, BJP, a national party, have been defamed. The aggrieved person is BJP, then the complaint ought to have been filed by the duly authorised representative of the national party. However, the letter of authorisation is issued by the president of the state unit. Such authorisation cannot be accepted as legal authorisation.