Defamation Case Against Rahul Gandhi: UP Court Sets Sep 5 As Next Date Of Hearing

Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi's lawyer, Kashi Prasad Shukla, said plaintiff Mishra did not appear before the court for evidence following some health issues. The MP-MLA court in Sultanpur has fixed the next date of hearing for September 5, he added.

Sultanpur (UP):The MP-MLA court in Sultanpur on Friday could not hear a defamation case filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over a 2018 incident as the plaintiff could not appear citing ill health, his lawyer said. The court has now fixed September 5 as the next date for hearing in the case, plaintiff Vijay Mishra's lawyer Santosh Kumar Pandey said.

"Mishra did not appear in the court today due to ill health. An application was given to the court seeking time to present evidence, which was accepted and the MP-MLA court has given the date of September 5 for the next hearing. "On this date, the plaintiff will have to present evidence in the court through the lawyer," Pandey said.

Gandhi's lawyer Kashi Prasad Shukla said plaintiff Mishra did not appear in the court for evidence due to ill health. Now the court has fixed the date of September 5 for the hearing, he added. During the Karnataka elections in 2018, Gandhi allegedly made objectionable remarks against senior BJP leader Amit Shah. In August 2018, Mishra, a local BJP leader and former cooperative chairman, had filed a complaint in the court leading to the defamation case.

Gandhi surrendered in the court on February 20, 2024, during the 'Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra'. He got bail on two personal bonds of Rs 25,000 each, after which he was called to record his statement by issuing notices several times by the court. During the Lok Sabha elections, Gandhi could not reach the court citing poll engagements. Subsequently, the court ordered him in a strict tone to appear.

On July 26, the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha came to the Sultanpur court and recorded his statement. In this case, the hearing was to be held on August 12 on the basis of evidence, but the hearing could not be held as the judge of the MP-MLA court was on leave.

Read More