Will Rahul Gandhi get relief in advertisement defamatory case? To appear before Bengaluru court today

The defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi stems from a case filed by the Karnataka BJP for issuing alleged defamatory advertisements in the mainstream newspapers. This case was regarding the advertisement ahead of assembly polls last year saying that the BJP government in the state was involved in large-scale corruption during its 2019-2023 rules. Notably, the Congress leader will appear before a special court in Bengaluru on Friday.

#WATCH | Congress leader Rahul Gandhi reaches Delhi airport. He will shortly leave for Bengaluru to appear before a special court in a defamation case.

The Court has asked Rahul Gandhi to appear before it on June 7 in connection with a defamation lawsuit brought by the Karnataka… pic.twitter.com/Kc4ZxWRC4c

— ANI (@ANI) June 6, 2024

Taking it to the official X handle of state Congress, it mentioned, “Congress National Leader Rahul Gandhi is coming to the Special Court of People's Representatives under City Civil Court near Kaveri Bhawan, Bangalore on 7/6/2024 at 10 AM.” D Shivakumar, the deputy chief minister of Karnataka also appealed to not shout slogans and display play cards.

ಆತ್ಮೀಯರೇ, ಕಾಂಗ್ರೆಸ್ ರಾಷ್ಟ್ರೀಯ ನಾಯಕರಾದ ಶ್ರೀ ರಾಹುಲ್ ಗಾಂಧಿ ಅವರು ದಿನಾಂಕ 7/6/2024 ರಂದು (ನಾಳೆ) ಬೆಳಗ್ಗೆ 10 ಗಂಟೆಗೆ ಬೆಂಗಳೂರಿನ ಕಾವೇರಿ ಭವನದ ಬಳಿ ಇರುವ ಸಿಟಿ ಸಿವಿಲ್ ಕೋರ್ಟ್ ವ್ಯಾಪ್ತಿಯಲ್ಲಿರುವ ಜನ ಪ್ರತಿನಿಧಿಗಳ ವಿಶೇಷ ನ್ಯಾಯಾಲಯಕ್ಕೆ ಆಗಮಿಸುತ್ತಿದ್ದು, ಪಕ್ಷದ ಕಾರ್ಯಕರ್ತರು, ಮುಖಂಡರು, ಬೆಂಬಲಿಗರು, ಅಭಿಮಾನಿಗಳು ಯಾರೂ… pic.twitter.com/OsCj36TII6

— Karnataka Congress (@INCKarnataka) June 6, 2024

Notably, the chief minister, Siddharamaiah and deputy chief minister of Karnataka D Shivakumar, who were other accused have already been granted bail in connection with the case on June 1.

While hearing the case Judge KN Shivakumar had passed the order while setting June 7 as the date for Rahul Gandhi’s appearance in person. Notably, the counsel for Gandhi, last week moved an application seeking exemption from appearance for Gandhi, which was opposed by the complainant, saying repeated exemptions should not be permitted.