FACTS
The ruling and decision made by the knowledgeable single bench of the High Court dismissing the revision petition, which was contested in the current appeal, which was submitted in opposition to the Hon. Session Judge’s order; as a result, they requested a stay of the conviction, which was denied.
In 2019, Rahul Gandhi, a prominent leader of the Congress Party and a former member of parliament, addressed a rally in Karnataka Kolar. However, his statement regarding the question of “why all thieves share the same surname” has become a contentious issue. It is alleged that the appellant has defamed every person with the last name “Modi.” A complaint under sections 499,500 of the IPC was brought against the appellant by the BJP Party’s MLA or Purnesh Bhai Modi, a former Gujrat minister. Following the Gujrat High Court’s February 2023 decision to lift the hold in the Criminal Defamation Case, he was found guilty and sentenced to two years in prison by the local court of Surat district in Gujrat. Though his sentence was suspended by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, H.H. Varma’s court, and he was given bail to appeal the decision within 30 days.
As a member of the Lok Sabha representing Kerala’s Wayanad seat, he was disqualified due to the conviction’s non-suspension the very following day. Any individual found guilty and sentenced to two years or more in prison shall be disqualified or remain ineligible for six years even after their release, according to Article 102 (1) 8[1] of the Indian Constitution read in conjunction with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
ISSUES RAISED
- Is the appellant entitled to the maximum punishment that the experienced trial judge decided to administer?
- Is it appropriate to bar the appellant from holding a seat in Parliament?
- Does criminal defamation constitute a morally repugnant offence?
CONTENTION
The petitioner’s learned senior attorney argued that the complainant should have more weight in the current proceedings because he is more concerned with being disqualified, which is a political matter, and he cannot claim that he does not want to be in Parliament and is here to oppose the plea for suspension of conviction and sentence. While summarising his arguments, the petitioner’s learned senior attorney claimed that the petitioner’s remark had not created a scenario where law and order was threatened and that the offence was not a serious one that was cognizable or exempt from bail. The petitioner’s learned attorney concluded by arguing that all of these grounds are the best ones on which the court can exercise its authority under Section 389 of the C.R.P.C. and that, should the petitioner’s conviction not be stayed, he will be permanently barred from office for a period of time that is essentially semi-permanent. Senior lawyers with experience representing the petitioner argued that the motion should be granted or that the conviction against the petitioner should be stayed.[2]
But when it came under the shed of respondent’s learned counsel, it was stated that it was not just a simplified statement of other person but it Also referred the most infamous absconder accused of the country, who are on the run; (g) Further, referred the name of the Hon’ble Prime Minister to add sensation, apparently and for an intention to affect the election result of the candidate of concern constituency (Kollar) belonging to the political party of Hon’ble PM; (h) The accused than did not stopped there but imputed that “Saare Choro ke naam Modi hi Kyu Hai”;
Thus, the present case would certainly fall in the category of “seriousness of the offence”.
10. Further, the above act shall amount to an offence punishable u/s. 171G of IPC also. Thus, the offence punishable u/s. 499 is committed with an intent to make a false statement in connection with an election, which is per se, offence of moral turpitude.
Rationale
In addition to upholding appellant Rahul Gandhi’s conviction, the Supreme Court also suspended the punishment. The Supreme Court went on to state that the trial judge had provided no justification for the two-year sentence other than the warning the court had issued during the contempt proceeding. It’s also important to remember that the Representation of Peoples Act’s section 8(3) became applicable when the learned trial judge only handed down a two-year sentence. This clause would not have been in place if this phrase had been shorter by one day in any case. As a result, the disqualification from serving as a member of Parliament has also been postponed in addition to the conviction ban. The Court also took reference from the case of Pawan Kumar v. State of Haryana [(1996) wherein any contrary statement or defamatory comes under moral turpitude and it is defined as followed: ‘Moral turpitude’ is an expression which is used in legal as also societal parlance to describe conduct which is inherently base, vile, depraved or having any connection showing depravity.”
DEFECTS OF LAW
Especially in cases when the charge is not cognizable, bailable, or compoundable, the trial judge was only had to provide a brief justification of why, under the particular facts and circumstances, he determined that the two-year maximum punishment was appropriate. Even so, the learned Appellate Court and the learned High Court have dedicated numerous pages to the process of dismissing the application for various facets of belief have not even been mentioned in their directives.
According to CRPC Sec. 199(1), the complainant is not an aggrieved party. Dangerous ex-facie trial eroding factors. A breach of Section 202(1) will render the trial invalid. No Documentary Evidence or Case of No Evidence under the Indian Evidence Act Irreparable, irrevocable situation and extra-ordinary circumstances.
There is no definition for the term “moral turpitude” anywhere. However, it refers to any action that is against morality, fairness, honesty, or modesty. It suggests that the individual accused of the specific behaviour has a depraved and wicked temperament. While not all falsehoods spoken by someone constitute moral turpitude, they would if they revealed vileness or depravity in the commission of any obligation a person has to the community at large or to his fellow citizens, both personally and socially.
INFERENCE
Rahul Gandhi said in his response to the Supreme Court in his plea contesting his conviction in the 2019 criminal defamation case over his Modi surname statement that it would be required to interpret the speech as a whole to infer the purpose to slander. Rahul Gandhi has stated, “Defamation is only one of the 22 offences under the IPC that attracts only simple imprisonment,” in his request for a stay of his conviction. This is a unique situation in and of itself in terms of the factors taken into account for the stay of conviction as long
[1] Aishwarya Iyer, Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwar Bhai Modi, Law Beat, (Aug.20, 2023, 9.29 PM), https://lawbeat.in/top-stories/modi-surname-case-leader-opposition-it-necessary-i-critically-evaluate-conduct-ruling
[2] Vipasha Mehta, Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwar bhai Modi, Legal Vaidhya (Aug 21, 2023, 6:30) , https://legalvidhiya.com/rahul-gandhi-v-purnesh-ishwarbhai-modi-anr-2023sc-598/