Bengaluru: In a significant development on Thursday, the Karnataka High Court reserved its order on the plea filed by BJP MLA Basangouda Patil Yatnal, who sought to quash an FIR filed against him over alleged derogatory remarks he made about Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
The matter arose after Patil responded to statements Gandhi had made during his recent overseas visit.
Yatnal argued that his comments were a direct reaction to what he described as “nonsense” statements made by Rahul Gandhi abroad. His counsel, Advocate Venkatesh Dalwai, defended him by stating that the FIR, which included serious charges such as promoting enmity and creating public mischief, was entirely baseless.
Dalwai contended that no criminal offence had been committed and that if Rahul Gandhi felt offended, he should file a defamation suit, a process Yatnal was fully prepared to face.
The BJP MLA didn’t hold back his remarks, telling the court, “I have simply questioned his orientation. He makes provocative statements abroad, stirs unrest overseas, and I responded accordingly. I did not target his character, nor did I make any religious comments. If he’s so aggrieved, he can file a defamation case, and I will defend it.”
Yatnal further pointed out that Rahul Gandhi’s overseas statements, which he claimed were critical of India, were problematic and warranted a response.
He even questioned Rahul Gandhi’s loyalty, bringing up the fact that his mother, Sonia Gandhi, was an Italian national, but insisting that he had not questioned her character.
On the other side, Advocate Sanket Yenagi, representing the complainant, S Manohar, argued passionately that Yatnal’s comments were not just politically charged but could potentially create unrest.
Yenagi pointed out that Patil’s statement had the potential to outrage the modesty of a woman, referencing Rahul Gandhi’s mother. He insisted that an investigation into the matter was essential to determine whether the remarks crossed a legal line.
As the hearing came to a close, Justice M Nagaprasanna, who presided over the case, chose to reserve the order on Yatnal’s plea. The judge extended the interim order, which had previously stayed the investigation and all related proceedings, until the time a final decision is made.
