The Bombay High Court on Tuesday rejected Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plea seeking to quash summons issued against him in a criminal defamation case linked to his remarks about Prime Minister Narendra Modi during the Rafale controversy.

A single bench of Justice N R Borkar found no apparent illegality or serious irregularity in the August 28, 2019 order of the Girgaum magistrate that initiated proceedings against Gandhi. The court therefore declined to interfere with the case.

However, the High Court continued its earlier direction deferring proceedings before the magistrate for six weeks, allowing Gandhi time to approach the Supreme Court against Tuesday’s ruling. This means the immediate proceedings will remain on hold during that period. 

What is the defamation case against Rahul Gandhi?

The complaint was filed by M H Shrishrimal, who identified himself as a BJP worker. The case relates to remarks Gandhi made during a political rally in Rajasthan in 2018 while attacking the Narendra Modi government over the Rafale fighter-jet deal.

According to the complaint, Gandhi used expressions including “Chowkidar Chor Hai”, “Choro Ke Sardar” and “Commander-in-Thief” while referring to Modi. The complainant alleged that the remarks not only targeted the Prime Minister but also affected the reputation of BJP members and supporters. 

The magistrate subsequently issued process against Gandhi on August 28, 2019.

Gandhi challenged maintainability of complaint

Gandhi’s lawyers, Sudeep Pasbola and Kushal Mor, argued before the High Court that the complaint was not legally maintainable.

Their central argument was that Gandhi’s remarks were directed at the Prime Minister and did not specifically name the BJP or its members. They contended that Shrishrimal could not claim to be an aggrieved person merely by interpreting the remarks as an attack on BJP workers.

The prosecution side opposed the plea and argued that a clearly identifiable group can, under the law, form the basis of a defamation complaint when the alleged statement affects that group. 

Court refuses to stop proceedings at this stage

The High Court did not accept Gandhi’s request to terminate the case at the threshold.

Justice Borkar held that there was no manifest illegality or perversity in the magistrate’s order warranting interference under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. The detailed order was not immediately available when the judgment was reported. 

The ruling does not amount to a finding that Gandhi is guilty of defamation. It only means that the High Court has declined to quash the criminal proceedings at this stage.

Six-week relief for Supreme Court challenge

Although Gandhi’s petition was dismissed, the court provided him temporary procedural relief.

The magistrate-level proceedings will remain deferred for six weeks, giving Gandhi an opportunity to challenge the High Court ruling before the Supreme Court. Reports said his lawyers had sought this time specifically for filing an appeal. 

As a result, Gandhi will not immediately have to appear before the magistrate in connection with the complaint during the six-week period.

Other defamation cases involving Gandhi

The Congress leader has faced several defamation proceedings over political statements.

One prominent case involved his “Modi surname” remark. In 2023, a Surat court sentenced him to two years in prison in a criminal defamation case filed by BJP MLA Purnesh Modi. The Supreme Court subsequently stayed the conviction.

Other cases have involved remarks concerning former BJP president Amit Shah and Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. Their legal status and proceedings are separate from the present Bombay High Court case.

The latest ruling adds another legal development to the long-running political dispute between Gandhi and the BJP over statements made during the 2019 Lok Sabha election campaign.

Nora Fatehi Faces ₹3 Crore Defamation Suit Over ‘Toy Plane’ Remarks

Bollywood actor Nora Fatehi is facing a ₹3 crore civil defamation suit filed by aviation company Dunes Aviation in a Gandhinagar court over her alleged social media comments about one of its chartered aircraft.

The company has alleged that Fatehi described the aircraft as a “toy” and a “Lego airplane” after travelling on it, and claimed that the remarks harmed its reputation and commercial operations. The matter is scheduled to come up before Senior Civil Judge R. Agarwal on September 25. (Business Today)

Dispute dates back to December 2025 flight

According to the lawsuit, Fatehi recorded videos inside a Cessna Citation CJ2 aircraft during a Mumbai-Jaipur flight in December 2025 and later shared the footage on Instagram.

The aviation company alleges that she referred to the aircraft as “miniature”, a “toy” and a “Lego airplane”. Dunes Aviation has described these comments as derogatory, reckless and irresponsible, arguing that they were made without adequate technical knowledge or verification. (Business Today)

Company claims business was affected

Dunes Aviation has linked the social media posts to an alleged decline in its business. According to the company's claims in the suit, bookings fell by around 15–20% and cancellations increased following the controversy.

The firm has argued that Fatehi's large social media following amplified the comments and contributed to reputational damage, loss of goodwill and an adverse commercial impact. These are allegations made by the company in its civil suit and have not been established by the court. (The Economic Times)

Dunes Aviation says aircraft was certified

The company has also disputed any suggestion that the aircraft was unsuitable for the journey. Dunes Aviation has maintained that the Cessna Citation CJ2 was a standard aircraft, airworthy and operated legally.

According to the company's case, the aircraft was DGCA-certified and being operated under a valid Non-Scheduled Operator's Permit (NSOP). (Hungama Express)

₹3 crore damages sought

Apart from seeking ₹3 crore in damages, Dunes Aviation has asked for the removal of social media content containing the alleged statements or references to the aircraft.

The company has also sought a public clarification from Fatehi over the remarks. The court will consider the matter at its upcoming hearing on September 25. (Business Today)

No response from Nora Fatehi reported so far

As of the latest reports, no detailed response from Nora Fatehi to the civil suit has been reported. The legal proceedings are at an early stage, and the company's allegations should not be treated as findings of fact.

The case also raises a broader question about the legal consequences of comments made by high-profile personalities on social media, particularly when companies claim that such statements have caused measurable reputational or financial losses.

What happens next?

The Gandhinagar court's September 25 hearing will be an important next step in the dispute. Among the issues likely to arise are the nature of Fatehi's statements, whether they constitute actionable defamation, and whether Dunes Aviation can establish a direct connection between the posts and the financial losses it claims.

The ₹3 crore compensation demand, alleged 15–20% booking decline and claims about reputational damage are part of Dunes Aviation's case. They have not been established as court findings, and any response from Nora Fatehi could alter the context as proceedings develop.

The notice, issued Monday through senior advocate Parimoksh Seth, demands that Abdullah withdraw his statement and issue a public apology within seven days. If he doesn't, Sharma's legal team says it will pursue a criminal defamation case seeking ₹100 crore in damages.

The dispute traces back to July 11, when Abdullah, speaking at a convention in Srinagar, alleged that a senior BJP office-bearer had offered National Conference MLAs between ₹20 and 30 crore in cash, along with a ministerial post and a promise to restore Jammu and Kashmir's statehood, in exchange for defecting. Abdullah went further, claiming the BJP functionary who allegedly made the offer was a lawyer who practices in the Supreme Court of India — a detail widely read as pointing toward Sharma himself, given his legal background.

Advocate Seth, representing Sharma, said the allegations are entirely false and fabricated. He said the BJP had asked the Chief Minister to produce evidence supporting the claims, and that Abdullah's side had failed to do so. The notice argues that the statement, which spread across print, electronic and social media, caused serious damage to the reputation and dignity of both the BJP and Sharma personally.

Speaking about the notice, Seth said the legal team had given Abdullah seven days to apologise and retract his statement, warning that failure to do so would result in a ₹100 crore criminal defamation case. He reiterated that the allegations were baseless and that no evidence had been presented despite the BJP's request.

Neither Abdullah nor the National Conference had issued a public response to the legal notice at the time of publishing. The seven-day deadline set in the notice means any response — or lack of one — is likely to shape the next stage of what has already become one of the more heated political confrontations in Jammu and Kashmir this year.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday vacated the interim stay on an arrest warrant issued against Trinamool Congress (TMC) leader and Member of Parliament Abhishek Banerjee, paving the way for the execution of the warrant issued by the Bhopal MP-MLA Court.

The case stems from an alleged defamatory remark made by Banerjee during an election rally in Kolkata in November 2020. According to the complaint, Banerjee referred to BJP leader Akash Vijayvargiya as a “goon” while addressing a public gathering. Claiming that the statement damaged his reputation, Vijayvargiya filed a defamation complaint before the MP-MLA Court in Bhopal in 2021.

Following the filing of the complaint, judicial proceedings began in the lower court. During the course of the trial, the court directed Banerjee to appear before it. However, after repeated instances of non-appearance, the MP-MLA Court issued an arrest warrant against the TMC leader.

Banerjee subsequently approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court challenging the warrant. In his petition, he argued that he is an elected Member of Parliament and posed no risk of absconding. He also contended that the trial court had not adequately considered his application seeking exemption from personal appearance.

Taking these submissions into account, the High Court had earlier granted interim protection and stayed the execution of the arrest warrant. However, during the latest hearing, the court noted that despite being provided sufficient opportunity, there was no effective representation on behalf of the petitioner.

As a result, the High Court withdrew the interim relief and lifted the stay order. With this development, the arrest warrant issued by the Bhopal MP-MLA Court has become enforceable once again.

Defamation Case Background

The dispute traces back to a political speech delivered during an election campaign in West Bengal. Akash Vijayvargiya, BJP leader and son of senior BJP leader and Madhya Pradesh minister Kailash Vijayvargiya, alleged that Banerjee’s remarks were defamatory and harmed his public image.

The complaint was filed under relevant provisions dealing with defamation, and the matter has been under judicial consideration for several years.

Legal Implications

Legal experts believe the High Court’s decision does not amount to a finding on the merits of the defamation allegations. Instead, it relates to procedural compliance and Banerjee’s failure to effectively pursue his challenge against the warrant.

With the stay now removed, authorities may proceed in accordance with the directions of the trial court. Banerjee retains the option of seeking further legal remedies before a higher judicial forum.