The Bombay High Court requested the assistance of the Advocate General in the case brought forward by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. This case aims to dismiss the defamation lawsuit filed against him by a BJP leader in relation to his 2018 social media post and video where he used the term "commander in thief."

Justice Sarang Kotwal acknowledged that Rahul Gandhi had raised substantial legal questions in his petition. These questions encompassed legal issues, such as whether there was a legal impediment, as per Section 199 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure), that prevented complainant Mahesh Shrishrimal from filing the complaint.

Taking into account these arguments, it is evident that this case raises significant legal questions, including the specialized procedure outlined in Section 199 of the CrPC. Hence, I find it essential to request the learned Advocate General of Maharashtra to present the Court with their insights on all the legal aspects entailed in this matter, the judge stated.

In 2021, Rahul Gandhi filed an application in the Bombay High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) seeking the annulment of a Girgaum Magistrate's order. This order had initiated legal proceedings and summoned him to provide his response under Section 204A of the CrPC in response to a complaint filed by Shrishrimal.

In his petition, Rahul Gandhi argued that the constitutional right to freedom of speech and expression safeguards the right to criticize others, as long as such criticism is not made with actual malice. He explained that the term "actual malice" implies that a statement was made with knowledge of its falsity and with a reckless disregard for whether it was true or false.

In a recently submitted affidavit, the complainant stated that Rahul Gandhi's comments were explicitly aimed at the Prime Minister. This, according to the complainant, not only damaged the Prime Minister's reputation but also indirectly and by suggestion, drew a parallel between all members of the BJP, including himself, and thieves. This, in turn, negatively impacted their standing and reputation within society.

The complainant accused Rahul Gandhi of intentionally releasing the video with the aim of ensuring that newspapers and other media outlets would pick it up and give it wider circulation and coverage.

On Tuesday, Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, representing Rahul Gandhi, presented several arguments regarding the merits of the case. Additionally, he discussed various legal aspects, particularly referencing Section 199 of the CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure), and contended that there existed a legal impediment that prevented the BJP leader from lodging the complaint.

Advocate Sudeep Pasbola referred to Section 199(2) of the Code, which outlines a specific procedure concerning defamation allegations against the authorities listed within that subsection.

Advocate Sudeep Pasbola cited Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code and specifically highlighted Explanation 2, which addresses the concept of a "collection of persons." He argued that a political party does not qualify as an identifiable group of individuals, and as a result, Shrishrimal should not have been able to file the complaint in a representative capacity. Additionally, Pasbola contended that the case pertains to a violation of Article 19 of the Constitution of India, which relates to the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression.

On the contrary, Advocate Niteen Pradhan, representing the complainant, argued that Mahesh Shrishrimal is personally affected by the alleged defamation and can be considered an aggrieved party. Furthermore, Pradhan asserted that Shrishrimal is a member of the 'BJP Maharashtra Pradesh Committee,' and thus, he had the right to file the complaint in that capacity.

The court concluded that it would be necessary to seek the assistance of Advocate General Birendra Saraf in this case. As a result, the court adjourned the proceedings until October 17, 2023. In the meantime, the interim relief in the form of a stay on further legal proceedings would continue.