The complaint lacked credible demonstration of actual damages, an essential element of defamation, and did not specify how the complainant’s reputation was harmed, Rane had claimed.

The remarks were made in the course of political discourse, not out of personal animosity or vendetta, his plea said, adding that political criticism or annoyance does not constitute defamation. The special court had, however, rejected Rane’s plea, saying he made “vague and unsubstantiated” statements against Raut “indicating malice.

The court noted that prima facie, Rane’s statements were false and publicly made, thereby satisfying the elements of imputation and publication under defamation law.

It had noted that Raut presented documentary evidence, including a 2002 voters’ list extract, which was not disputed by Rane, confirming Raut was a registered voter.

The special judge had pointed out that the statement that ‘the complainant had committed fraud and would have to go to jail’ is vague, unsubstantiated, and cannot be said to have been made in good faith or with due care and attention.

The statements were made “without supporting material, thereby indicating malice and an intent to tarnish the complainant’s (Raut) reputation, it said.

The special court had refused to accept the plea of political discourse, saying the statements were “not mere expressions of dissenting views but specific allegations impugning the complainant’s integrity and lawfulness.”

It had concluded that the impugned order did not warrant interference and dismissed Rane’s plea against the process issued against him.