Rahul Gandhi Expresses Regret Over 2018 Panama Papers Remark; MP High Court Closes Defamation Proceedings

The Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur closed criminal defamation proceedings against Rahul Gandhi after he expressed regret for a 2018 campaign speech that wrongly named Kartikey Singh Chauhan in connection with the Panama Papers controversy.

On 25 June 2026, Justice Pramod Kumar Agrawal of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur closed criminal defamation proceedings against Rahul Gandhi, both before the High Court and before the trial court below. The closure followed Gandhi's formal expression of regret, placed on record through an interlocutory application, and the complainant Kartikey Singh Chauhan's written acceptance of that regret. The underlying dispute arose from a speech Gandhi made on 29 October 2018 during the Madhya Pradesh Assembly Election campaign in Jhabua, in which he made a reference to the Panama Papers that the complainant said wrongly implicated him or his father, who was then Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh.

The Defamation Case and Its Route to the High Court

The trial court — the JMFC, Special Judge (MP & MLA), Bhopal — took cognizance of an offence punishable under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and issued summons to Gandhi. That cognizance order was dated 13 December 2024, and the case before the trial court was registered as Criminal Case No. S.C.P.P.M. 3/2025.

Gandhi challenged that cognizance and summoning order by filing Misc. Criminal Case No. 13941 of 2026 before the High Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). Section 528 of the BNSS is the provision that allows a High Court to exercise its inherent powers to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice, broadly equivalent to the erstwhile Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

While that petition was pending, Gandhi moved I.A. No. 14821/2026, an application to bring his statement on record. That statement, reproduced in the order, set out the factual context of the 2018 speech and placed Gandhi's clarification and regret before the court.

What Gandhi's Statement Said

In paragraphs 2 and 3 of I.A. No. 14821/2026, Gandhi stated that on 29 October 2018, during the election campaign in Jhabua, he made the allegedly defamatory statement in which a reference was made to the Panama Papers. He stated that upon discovering that Chauhan's name had erroneously appeared in that statement, he clarified publicly on the very next day — 30 October 2018 — that the person he had intended to refer to was the son of the former Chief Minister of Chhattisgarh, who had been named in the Panama Papers controversy, and not Chauhan or his father, the then Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh.

Gandhi's statement recorded that “the applicant, thus, express his regret” and that he stood by the public clarification made on 30 October 2018. He requested that the case be closed and proceedings before the trial court be dropped.

Complainant's Acceptance and Agreed Closure

Chauhan filed a written reply to I.A. No. 14821/2026. In that reply, the complainant stated that in view of the subsequent developments and the regret expressed by Gandhi, he did not intend to escalate the issue further. He agreed that proceedings before both the High Court and the trial court be closed, subject to the verbatim statement in I.A. No. 14821/2026 being made part of the final order.

Senior Advocates Vivek Krishna Tankha and Ajay Gupta, appearing with Advocates Aishwarya Sahu and Rajeev Mishra for Gandhi, submitted before the court that the regret had been expressed and accepted, and that both sides agreed to closure. Advocate Sankalp Kochar, appearing for Chauhan, confirmed the same position.

The Court's Reasoning

Justice Agrawal noted that Gandhi had filed the petition under Section 528 of the BNSS challenging the trial court's order of 13 December 2024, by which cognizance under Section 500 of the IPC had been taken and the summons issued. The court recorded that Gandhi had expressed regret for the alleged defamatory statement in paragraph 2 of I.A. No. 14821/2026, and that Chauhan had filed a reply accepting that regret and consenting to closure.

Considering the statement in the interlocutory application, the reply filed by the complainant, and the arguments of counsel for both sides, the court found that the matter had reached a consensual resolution. The court did not proceed to examine the merits of the challenge to the cognizance order, since both parties had agreed that proceedings be closed upon the regret being placed on record and forming part of the final order.

Order

Justice Agrawal ordered that the proceedings before the High Court stand closed. He further directed that the proceedings pending before the JMFC, Special Judge (MP & MLA), Bhopal, in complaint case no. SCPPM No. 03/2018, shall also stand closed. The petition was disposed of accordingly. The court directed that a copy of the order be sent to the concerned trial court for information and necessary compliance. A certified copy was issued on the same day, 25 June 2026.