The Supreme Court has halted the criminal defamation trial against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi regarding his 2018 comments. The apex court’s decision follows a previous refusal by the Bombay High Court to dismiss the charges. The court has requested a response from the complainant and the state government within four weeks.
The Supreme Court of India has placed an interim stay on the ongoing criminal defamation trial involving Congress leader and Leader of the Opposition in the Lok Sabha, Rahul Gandhi. A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Aparesh Kumar Singh issued the order today, effectively freezing lower court proceedings until the matter is reviewed further.
The legal dispute dates back to 2018 when Mahesh H. Shrishrimal, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker, filed a private complaint against Rahul Gandhi. The complainant alleged that remarks made by the politician during a rally regarding the Rafale fighter jet procurement were defamatory. Specifically, the complaint took issue with terms such as "Choro ke Sardar" and "Commander-in-Thief," which the complainant argued were used to malign the character of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the BJP.
This development comes after a setback in the Bombay High Court on September 8, 2026, where the court had declined to quash the summons issued to Gandhi in the case. Following that refusal, the legal team representing the Congress leader appealed to the Supreme Court seeking relief.
The stay granted by the Supreme Court provides immediate temporary relief by stopping the trial court from moving forward. The bench has issued notices to the Maharashtra government and the original complainant, granting a four-week period for them to file their responses. The case will be evaluated further after these replies are submitted, which will determine whether the trial continues or is dismissed by the apex court.
For observers following this legal development, the next significant update will be the response provided by the respondents after the four-week period concludes. The outcome of these proceedings remains a key point of interest regarding legal discourse surrounding public figures and political commentary.