Rahul Gandhi expresses regret over Kartikeya remark:Defamation case verdict reserved by High Court

The hearing in the defamation case between Leader of Opposition in the Lok Sabha Rahul Gandhi and Kartikeya Singh Chauhan concluded in the Madhya Pradesh High Court on Wednesday. The court reserved its verdict after hearing arguments from both sides on a petition filed by Rahul Gandhi. The matter was heard by the single bench of Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal. The High Court had earlier asked Kartikeya Singh Chauhan to file a response after Rahul Gandhi submitted an affidavit. During the hearing, Kartikeya’s counsel informed the court that if Rahul Gandhi had mentioned his name by confusion, he no longer had any objection to the matter. Following the submissions, the court reserved its judgment. A decision is expected soon. Demand to dismiss petition from Kartikeya’s side Appearing for Kartikeya Singh Chauhan, advocate Sankalp Kochar told the court that Rahul Gandhi had admitted in his written reply that he had mistakenly referred to Kartikeya Singh Chauhan in connection with the Panama Papers case. He had also expressed regret over the statement. The remark, he argued, was neither directed at former Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan nor at Kartikeya Singh Chauhan. The lawyer further said that Kartikeya Singh Chauhan had stated in his response that he no longer had any objection in the matter. Therefore, the defamation proceedings as well as Rahul Gandhi’s petition should be disposed of. The High Court has reserved its order, which is expected either later today or by Monday. Rahul Gandhi had said – Kartikeya’s name in Panama Papers During an election rally, Rahul Gandhi alleged that the name of Kartikeya Singh Chauhan, son of former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan, had figured in the Panama Papers leak. He had said that while former Pakistan Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif went to jail after his name surfaced in the Panama Papers, no action was taken in Madhya Pradesh. Rahul Gandhi said- Took Kartikeya’s name in confusion In his application before the High Court, Rahul Gandhi stated that the remark was not intended for the complainant. He said Kartikeya Singh Chauhan’s name was mentioned inadvertently during the speech. Rahul Gandhi further pointed out that a day after making the statement, he had publicly clarified that he intended to name Abhishek Singh, son of then Chhattisgarh Chief Minister Raman Singh, but mistakenly took Kartikeya Singh Chauhan’s name due to confusion. The case stems from a speech delivered by Rahul Gandhi during the 2018 Jhabua Assembly election campaign. Kartikeya Singh Chauhan alleged that while serving as Congress president, Rahul Gandhi referred to him during an election rally while discussing the Panama Papers leak. According to the complaint, the statement damaged his reputation and public image. Complaint was filed in MP-MLA Court Kartikeya Singh Chauhan had filed a criminal defamation complaint against Rahul Gandhi in the MP-MLA Court in Bhopal. Advocate Sankalp Kochar represented the complainant in the case. After hearing the matter, the court issued summons directing Rahul Gandhi to appear in person. Summons challenged in High Court Challenging the summons issued by the MP-MLA Court and the ongoing proceedings, Rahul Gandhi approached the Madhya Pradesh High Court. In his petition, he questioned the proceedings before the lower court and also sought exemption from personal appearance during the hearing scheduled for 25 June. The case in which Rahul had to apologize Rafale Case (2019): ‘Chowkidar Chor Hai’ remark What happened?
Rahul Gandhi had claimed in the Rafale case that the Supreme Court had also accepted that “Chowkidar Chor Hai”. BJP MP Meenakshi Lekhi subsequently filed a contempt petition. What did he do initially?
Rahul Gandhi first expressed regret, but the Supreme Court held that the explanation was not sufficient. What happened later?
He later submitted an unconditional apology before the Supreme Court through an affidavit, stating that linking the court to the political slogan was an inadvertent mistake. Outcome:
The Supreme Court accepted the apology and closed the contempt proceedings, while cautioning him to exercise greater care in future.