TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
Sports
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | United StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | Time CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
EntertainmentIPL 2025
Business | My MoneyAutoZone
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
Advertisement

Pathankot court grants relief to Rahul, other MPs

Complaint against Cong over cash scheme promise in LS poll
Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge with party leader Rahul Gandhi at a public meeting during the Bharat Jodo Nyay Yatra, in Banswara. PTI file
Advertisement

A Pathankot court granted reprieve to Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi, AICC president Malikarjun Kharge, PPCC president Amarinder Singh Raja Warring and 98 MPs by temporarily discharging them in a case filed by a local advocate.

The orders were passed by Ravneet Kaur Bedi, Judicial Magistrate (First class), Pathankot. The next date of hearing has been fixed for April 19.

Advertisement

After hearing arguments of both the sides, the court ruled that “under the latest legal provisions of Section 223 of the BNSS, all respondents, including Rahul Gandhi, were discharged for the time being.”

Vikrant Mahajan, counsel for Rahul, said the court found that the legal threshold for proceeding against them had not yet been met. He added that in future if the court found evidence against them, they would be proceeded against.

“The matter still remains under judicial scrutiny and further proceedings will depend upon additional evidence brought before the court in the future,” said Mahajan.

Advertisement

The complainant, Tarsem Lal, had filed a petition under Sections 316, 318 and 61 (1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) read with sections 2 (1) (H) and 223 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. He had claimed that in the run-up to the 2024 General Election, the Congress had promised Rs 8,500 per month to women. The complainant claimed that this was a poll gimmick aimed at deceiving voters. He further said “this was a criminal breach of trust by offering women a bait in the form of the monthly deposit as a quid pro quo for securing votes.”

In today’s deliberations, Mahajan cited legal interpretation of section 223 of the BNSS which provides procedural safeguards for summoning individuals in such cases.

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement