Relief To Rahul Gandhi, Gauhati High Court Quashes Order Summoning Additional Witnesses In 2016 Defamation Case Against Him

The Gauhati High Court quashed a sessions court order permitting the complainant to adduce three additional witnesses in a 2016 criminal defamation case lodged against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. 

The court said that the grounds based on which complainant had sought summoning of additional witnesses were not specific, broad, general and the complainant had not  demonstrated in what manner their evidence bears any nexus with the facts in issue, except stating that these witnesses are material and vital. 

The complainant alleged that Gandhi went to Barpeta and took part in a Padayatra addressing a public rally at Medhirtari. It was further alleged that Gandhi was supposed to visit Barpeta Satra (Vaishnavite monastery) and take blessings however, he kept the officials of Satra 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 Satra got annoyed and expressed their anguish before different TV channels and journalists present therein.

It was alleged that Gandhi made a statement that "he was prevented from going to the Satra by RSS people", which was subsequently published in an English daily on 15.12.2015. 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 communalise the issue to gain political mileage on the eve of the election in the State. 

Before the magistrate court, 7 prosecution witnesses, including the complainant himself, were examined, cross-examined and discharged. At that stage, an application was filed by the complainant to allow him to adduce 3 more witnesses. However the magistrate court in its 18.03.2023 order dismissed the same on the ground that the complainant has failed to specify the reason and purpose for calling the additional 3 witnesses. Against this the complainant moved the sessions court which granted him the relief. Gandhi approached the high court against this order. 

Upholding the magistrate court's decision Justice Arun Dev Choudhury in his order observed:

"From the reasons recorded herein above, 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".

The court noted that while Section 254(2) CrPC grants the complainant a right to file an application to issue summons to additional witnesses or produce documents, it also confers a discretionary power upon the Magistrate to issue summons on such a plea,

"Importantly, the Legislature uses the permissive phrase “if he thinks fit” into Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C...A reading of the language of Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C., this Court is of the opinion that the legislature had consciously separated “if he thinks fit” in Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C., from the stronger requirement of “essential to the just decision of the case” under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. The Magistrate under Section 254(2) of Cr.P.C., in the opinion of this Court, have wide discretionary power to summon witnesses, subject to avoidance of abuse," the court said. 

The court observed that this discretion by the magistrate must be exercised judicially, not arbitrarily. The court thereafter noted that the grounds adduced by the complainant in his application to summon additional witnesses were "very general and formulative reasons". It said:

"...a careful scrutiny of the petition filed before the magistrate reveals that the complainant has not specified anything, let alone the specific nature of the evidence proposed, nor has he demonstrated in what manner such evidence bears any nexus with the facts in issue, except stating that these witnesses are material and vital. The grounds as quoted herein above, are too broad and general. The disclosure of the minimal particulars, which would enable the magistrate to assess whether he deems it fit to allow such a prayer, is/are also not present. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the names of these witnesses were inadvertently omitted from the original list. Therefore, the basic facts that are required to enable a magistrate to exercise his discretion are absent. To exercise its discretionary jurisdiction based on a general and bald statement would amount to encouraging procedural laxity. It would be contrary to the settled principle that the discretion under section 254(2) must be exercised judiciously".

The high court also said that the Additional Sessions Judge did not consider that the foundation was not laid in the petition seeking the summoning of the witnesses, even to arrive at the satisfaction required.

The court said that the sessions court ignored the settled proposition of law while allowing the Revision petition by the complainant.

"Such is an arbitrary exercise of discretion, resulting in patent illegality, which cannot be allowed to stand," the court said. 

Quashing the sessions court's order the court directed the magistrate court to expeditiously dispose of the defamation case as the petitioner is a sitting Member of Parliament.

Case title: RAHUL GANDHI v/s THE STATE OF ASSAM AND ANR

Case No. : Crl.Rev.P./283/2024