A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Aparesh Kumar Singh issued notices to the Maharashtra government and complainant M H Shrishrimal, directing them to respond within four weeks. The judges ordered that further proceedings before the trial court remain stayed until the matter is considered again.
Gandhi, the Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha and MP for Raebareli, approached the Supreme Court after the Bombay High Court declined on September 8 to set aside summons issued against him by a Mumbai magistrate in 2019.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gandhi, referred to earlier Supreme Court judgments during Tuesday’s hearing and submitted that the applicable legal principles were already settled. The bench issued notice without delivering a final ruling on the validity of the complaint or the summons.
The case originated in a complaint lodged by Shrishrimal, a Bharatiya Janata Party member, concerning political statements Gandhi allegedly made about Modi during a public meeting in Rajasthan on September 20, 2018. The remarks were made against the backdrop of the controversy surrounding the Rafale fighter aircraft agreement.
The expressions cited in accounts of the complaint include “commander-in-thief” and “choron ke sardar”, a Hindi phrase meaning leader of thieves. The complainant maintained that the remarks were defamatory towards Modi and adversely affected people associated with him, including BJP members.
Shrishrimal argued that his association with the BJP gave him grounds to pursue the complaint because the allegations against its leader had also aggrieved party supporters. That contention forms part of the dispute over whether he was entitled to initiate criminal defamation proceedings concerning remarks directed at another person.
The Girgaum magistrate issued process against Gandhi on August 28, 2019, following the complaint. Gandhi subsequently challenged the summons before the Bombay High Court, questioning whether the criminal proceedings could be maintained on the basis advanced by Shrishrimal.
The High Court dismissed his petition on September 8, leaving the magistrate’s summons in place. It nevertheless continued protection granted in 2021, directing the magistrate to defer hearing the complaint for six weeks to allow Gandhi to seek relief from the Supreme Court.
Tuesday’s order extends that procedural protection through a stay imposed by the country’s highest court. It prevents the magistrate from advancing the case while the Supreme Court considers the challenge, but does not amount to an acquittal or dismissal of the complaint.
The distinction is significant because Gandhi’s appeal concerns the legal basis on which the proceedings were permitted to continue. The Supreme Court has yet to decide whether the High Court was correct to refuse intervention or whether the summons should ultimately be quashed.
The complainant and the Maharashtra government will now have an opportunity to place their positions before the bench. Their responses may address the maintainability of the complaint, the reasoning adopted by the High Court and the legal authorities relied upon by Gandhi’s counsel.
The proceedings also involve the question of how criminal defamation provisions apply when political criticism targets a public figure but the person filing the complaint claims injury through political association. The Supreme Court did not resolve that question at Tuesday’s preliminary hearing.
The original complaint alleged that Gandhi’s statements prompted criticism of Modi across television and social media. Those assertions remain allegations advanced by Shrishrimal rather than findings made by the Supreme Court.
The dispute has followed Gandhi through successive stages of litigation, from the magistrate’s decision to summon him to the High Court’s refusal to intervene. The immediate issue before the Supreme Court is his challenge to that refusal, rather than any determination of criminal liability.
At the hearing, the judges confined their immediate intervention to issuing notice and protecting the status of the trial. No final assessment of the allegedly defamatory words was announced. The parties therefore remain free to argue their respective positions when the appeal returns before the bench for further consideration.
The bench listed the matter for further hearing after four weeks, matching the period allowed for responses from the state government and Shrishrimal. The underlying complaint remains pending before the Girgaum magistrate, subject to the Supreme Court’s interim direction.
