On February 21, 2026, Rahul Gandhi appeared at the magistrate’s court in Bhiwandi to complete formalities for a fresh surety in a defamation case dating back to 2014. The short, procedural hearing became necessary after the original guarantor — former union home minister Shivraj Patil — died in December, leaving the bail undertaking without a sponsor.
Gandhi was present so the court could formally record the substitution of the surety. He named Harshwardhan Sapkal, president of the Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee, who was accepted by the bench. With Sapkal’s name on the record, the bail conditions remain in place and the case can move forward on the court calendar.
Background and legal status
The complaint was filed by RSS activist Rajesh Kunte, who says remarks made by Gandhi in Sonale village during the 2014 Lok Sabha campaign amounted to criminal defamation under section 500 of the IPC. Court records show the complainant’s cross-examination and re‑examination have already been completed; the substitution of the surety was an administrative step to prevent the trial from stalling after Patil’s passing.
What happened on the day
Gandhi travelled from Mumbai to Thane district and presented himself at the Bhiwandi court as directed. Police tightened security around the court complex; nearby shops faced temporary restrictions and officers were deployed to maintain order. Reports also said there were small demonstrations en route — opponents displayed black flags in Mumbai in a response to earlier Youth Congress actions — but the court formalities were brief. Gandhi was expected to return to Mumbai and later travel to New Delhi the same day.
Who is the new guarantor
Harshwardhan Sapkal, a local leader and former municipal official who now heads the state Congress unit, was proposed as the replacement guarantor. His role is strictly procedural: a surety vouches that the accused will comply with court directions, and Sapkal’s acceptance preserves the legal assurances tied to bail while the defamation proceedings continue. Lawyers say such substitutions are routine when a court needs to maintain continuity of bail conditions.
Procedure, timeline and next steps
The matter had been adjourned previously — it was listed for December and then moved to January 17 so a new surety could be arranged, before finally being put on the February 21 roster to complete the formalities. With the court’s acceptance of the new guarantor, registry staff will update records and normal case-management timelines will apply. The defendant must continue to observe existing bail conditions; hearings will now focus on evidence and legal argument rather than administrative technicalities.
Why this matters
While the substitution itself was administrative, it removed a procedural obstacle that could have delayed the trial. By restoring the bail undertaking, the court ensured the matter can proceed on its merits and that both parties’ rights remain protected as the legal process continues.