New Delhi: A court in Gujarat’s Surat district on Thursday convicted Congress MP Rahul Gandhi in a 2019 criminal defamation case and sentenced him to two years in prison.
However, Chief Judicial Magistrate HH Verma granted bail to Gandhi on a surety of Rs 15,000 and stayed the sentence for 30 days to allow him to appeal.
The conviction followed a defamation complaint filed on April 15, 2019, by former Gujarat minister and BJP MLA from Surat West, Purnesh Modi. The complaint pertains to Gandhi’s remarks at an election rally two days earlier on April 13, 2019.
At the rally, Gandhi was quoted as saying: “Why all thieves have Modi in their names, be it Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi and Narendra Modi?”
Here we look at what the defamation law says, what the complainant alleged and what the court said while convicting Gandhi.
Read also: Who is Modi? The community ‘maligned’ by Rahul is of nomadic origin, came to Gujarat 600 years ago
What did the complainant allege
The complainant has stated in his petition that Gandhi insulted 13 crore people of India for his ‘political gains’ and tried to harm the personal reputation of all those who share the surname ‘Modi’.
He alleged that he was shocked and defamed by the speech. They also told the court that people from other communities have started looking at them “with suspicion”, and there has been social, physical and mental harm/damage.
Since he is an MLA and a social worker, complainant Purnesh Modi said, “irreparable damage” has been caused to him and his social reputation.
what the court said
In his defence, among other things, Gandhi objected to the veracity of the evidence presented in the court. Among other things, a CD and a pendrive with copies of his speech were submitted to the court as evidence.
Gandhi had said that the controversial speech was about highlighting India’s problems.
His lawyers submitted that even if it is assumed that the statement was made, it cannot be said that it was an insult to the Modi community or an individual. When a person makes an impromptu speech, Gandhi said in his disputation, there is a possibility of mistake.
In its 168-page order, the court noted that the complaint was not filed merely on the basis of public defamation of the ‘Modi’ community (Society) or caste, but also for the suffering caused to the complainant himself.
The court said that Gandhi could have stayed after giving ‘surname’ (surname) After calling PM Modi a ‘thief’, and comparing him with economic criminals of India like Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Mehul Choksi and Vijay Mallya. However, Gandhi asked “Why is every thief nicknamed Modi?” (in order) to intentionally insult all persons having the surname ‘Modi’ or any person known as ‘Modi’, the order said.
It insisted that Gandhi was a parliamentarian and that his addressing the people in this manner was a very serious matter. The order said that when one addresses people as a parliamentarian, it has a lot of impact. The court said in its order that this increases the seriousness of such crimes and giving him less punishment would send a wrong message to the society.
The fact that the alleged defamatory statement is made has been proved beyond any doubt, the court said, adding that it refutes the argument of possible tampering with the CD of Gandhi’s speech.
The court also noted that the case was based not only on electronic but also on oral and documentary evidence.
What does the law say
Under Indian law, defamation is both a criminal and a civil offence. If a person is found guilty of civil defamation, he can be asked to pay monetary compensation to the person who defamed him.
On the other hand, criminal defamation is dealt with under sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.
Section 499 defines defamation as words or visual representations, either oral or written, intended to damage the reputation of any person in relation to him.
Exceptions to defamation include the ‘imputation of truth’ necessary for the ‘public good’, or the conduct of any person touching a public question, or expressing opinion on public display.
Section 5oo of the IPC provides for a maximum of two years in jail, fine or both.
However, courts in India have held in the past that a class of people cannot be discredited as a class. It has also held that a person cannot be defamed by general reference to the class to which he belongs.
However, the courts have also held that a person can show that even though the statement reflected on a class of persons, it was that person who was targeted and therefore defamed.
an old English case, (Eastwood v. Holmes, 1860, explainIt goes like this: “If a person writes that all lawyers were thieves, a particular lawyer cannot prosecute him unless there is something to point to that particular person which is not here.”
Similarly, Indian courts have also stressed That in order to file a defamation complaint under section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, the person must be an aggrieved person who feels hurt or pain because of the defamatory statement.
However, “a person representing a group cannot maintain a complaint against a person or group of persons unknown or uncertain”, the Andhra Pradesh High Court held in 2018 in a case (V. Radhakrishna and 6 others Vs. Advocates).
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)