
Staff Reporter
Guwahati: The Gauhati High Court quashed a sessions court order permitting the complainant to examine three additional witnesses in a 2016 criminal defamation case lodged against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. The court said that the grounds on which the complainant had sought the summoning of additional witnesses were 'unexplained and too vague' and that the complainant had not demonstrated in what manner their evidence bears any connection with the facts in hand, except for stating that these witnesses are material and vital.
The complainant alleged that Gandhi went to Barpeta and took part in a Padayatra and addressed a public rally at Medhirtari. It was further alleged that Gandhi was supposed to visit Barpeta Satra (Vaishnavite monastery) and take blessings. However, it is said he kept the officials of xatra waiting. It was alleged that after waiting for a considerable period of time, the people waiting for him and the other office bearers of the xatra got annoyed and expressed their anguish before different TV channels and journalists present at the venue.
It was alleged that Gandhi made a statement that "he was prevented from going to the Barpeta Satra by RSS people," which was subsequently published in an English daily on December 15, 2015. According to the complaint, the same was also published in a local Assamese vernacular daily. It was alleged that Gandhi had deliberately and intentionally made defamatory statements to communalize the issue to gain political mileage just before the election in the state.
Justice Arun Dev Choudhury upheld the magistrate court's decision in his order, observing, "From the reasons recorded hereinabove, in the considered opinion of the court, in the present case, the application filed before the Magistrate was wholly vague and bereft of particulars. Therefore, the magistrate had rightly declined the prayer."
However, the revisional court later allowed the introduction of three more witnesses. Gandhi then approached the High Court. His plea was allowed on October 13 with a direction to expedite the proceedings in the defamation case.
"It is made clear that as the petitioner is a sitting Member of Parliament, the learned Magistrate shall take measures to expeditiously dispose of the case, in terms of the direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay vs. Union of India (supra)," the Court ordered.
Also Read: Assam Cabinet Expansion: BPF MLA Inducted as Minister