Jharkhand High Court on Friday extended the stay on a local judicial magistrate's summon notice to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to appear in a case filed against him for allegedly maligning Union Home Minister Amit Shah. Gandhi moved the High Court with a plea seeking that the court set aside criminal proceedings initiated against him by Ranchi's magisterial court. Justice Ambuj Nath while hearing this petition ordered that no coercive steps can be taken against the former MP till further orders of the court arrive in this regard, reported news agency PTI.
The first stay on the notice for appearance against Gandhi was announced on February 3. Prior to the stay, he was expected to appear before the magistrate's court in Ranchi the very next day.
Navin Jha, a BJP member in Ranchi filed this case against Rahul Gandhi.
Jha in his petition accused the Congress leader of maligning the image of BJP leader Amit Shah in a speech that Gandhi delivered in Chaibasa ahead of the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, reported PTI.
The complaint was filed on April 24 last year before the court of Ranchi Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate dismissed it.
Thereafter, he filed a revision petition before the court which was allowed, and the matter was remanded back to the court of the sub-divisional judicial magistrate.
'Modi Surname' Remark: Gujarat HC To Hear Rahul Gandhi's Plea Seeking Stay On Conviction Toda
In another set of court proceedings against Gandhi, his plea challenging the order of the Surat sessions court refusing a stay to his conviction in a criminal defamation case over his "Modi surname" remark will now be heard by a new judge of the Gujarat High Court today, news agency PTI reported.
As per the cause list published on Thursday by the Gujarat High Court, Rahul Gandhi's appeal will be heard by Justice Hemant Prachchhak on April 29.
Earlier on April 26, Justice Gita Gopi of Gujarat High Court recused herself from hearing the criminal revision application of the Congress leader saying "not before me," a day after Rahul Gandhi moved the High Court challenging the sessions court order.