Karnataka HC Declines PIL Seeking Apology From Rahul Gandhi Over Alleged Remarks On Women

Rahul Gandhi

The Karnataka High Court on Monday has dismissed a public interest litigation demanding that Congress leader Rahul Gandhi apologize for allegedly tarnishing the dignity of Indian women.

The petition stemmed from Gandhi’s claims that former Janata Dal (Secular) MP Prajwal Revanna “raped 400 women and filmed the act,” labeling it as “mass rape” rather than a mere sex scandal.

A bench consisting of Chief Justice N.V. Anjaria and Justice K. Aravind rejected the PIL, stating it was a waste of judicial time. Additionally, the court imposed a fine of ₹25,000 on the petitioner, the All India Dalit Action Committee, for bringing forth the plea.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that Gandhi’s remarks, made during a public speech, were irresponsible and offensive, especially to the women of Hassan. He urged the court to issue a notice to Gandhi, compelling him to respond to the allegations. “Gandhi is a serial offender,” the counsel asserted, referencing previous controversial statements made by Gandhi, including comments directed at individuals with the surname ‘Modi.’

The petitioner also mentioned ongoing citizenship issues related to Gandhi that are pending before the Delhi High Court as further evidence of his misconduct.

Despite these arguments, the Karnataka High Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, along with the imposed fine. The counsel for the petitioner sought a waiver of the fine, contending that he should not be penalized for pursuing what he deemed a rightful action.

The PIL emphasized that Gandhi’s unsubstantiated allegations misled the public and disrespected the modesty of Indian women, particularly in light of the provisions under the new Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita.

It claimed that Gandhi’s statements amounted to hate speech and promoted gender-based hatred. The petition also sought a directive for Gandhi to issue a public apology and called on the National Commission for Women to take appropriate action against him.

Ultimately, the court concluded that the matter did not warrant further consideration, reinforcing its stance against the PIL.