CITATION: 2023 (SC) 598
APPELLANT: Rahul Gandhi
RESPONDENT: Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi
COURT: Honourable Supreme Court of India
DATE OF FINAL JUDGEMENT: 4th of August, 2023
CASE TYPE: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8644 of 2023
BENCH: 3 Judge Bench (Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice P.S. Narasimha, and Justice Sanjay Kumar)
LEGAL PROVISIONS INVOLVED: Section 499, 500 and 504 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 8(3), 8(4) of Representation of the People Act, 1951
FACTS OF THE CASE:
- During a political rally in Kolar, Karnataka, India on 13 April 2019, ahead of the Indian general election, Congress leader and Wayanad MP Rahul Gandhi made a comment in Hindi questioning why individuals like Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, and Narendra Modi, who were involved in controversies, all shared the surname Modi.
- On Tuesday, 16th April 2019, Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, an MLA from the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) from Surat West, filed a criminal defamation case under Sections 499, 500, and 504 of the Indian Penal Code (1860) in the magistrate court, alleging that Gandhi’s statement had tarnished the reputation of all people with the surname Modi.
- On Thursday, 23rd March 2023, Gandhi was found Gandhi guilty under sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced with 2 years of imprisonment by Chief Judicial Magistrate H.H. Varma court. He was then granted bail and had his sentence suspended for 30 days so he could appeal the decision to a higher court.
- Furthermore, the court referenced a previous Supreme Court admonition in 2018, where Gandhi had been cautioned following his apology for the “Chowkidar Chor Hai” comment. Despite this warning from the highest court, the magistrate observed no discernible change in Gandhi’s behaviour.
- According to notification came from Lok Sabha Secretary General Utpal Kumar Singh on March 24, 2019 in accordance with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), Rahul Gandhi will no longer be eligible to serve as the Member of Parliament for the Wayanad constituency.
- In July 2023, a Single Judge bench of Gujarat High Court rejected Gandhi’s appeal, affirming that his conviction was considered fair and appropriate.
- On 4th of August, 2023 the Supreme Court of India granted a stay on Rahul Gandhi’s conviction pending appeal.
ISSUES RAISED:
- Is it reasonable for the trial judge to impose the highest penalty on the Appellant?
- Is it fair to strip the Appellant of their membership in Parliament?
- Does Criminal Defamation constitute an offence that involves moral depravity?
CONTENTION:
Argument from Appellant
- The lawyer also argued that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, and not Purnesh Modi, should have been complaint in this case because PM Modi was the main target of Gandhi’s speech.
- Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi argued that the remark made, was not of such kind or nature, for which the appellant was sentenced to maximum punishment.
- He also mentioned that the respondent is only uplifting this case in order to disqualify the Appellant (Rahul Gandhi) from the Wayanad Constituency.
- The decision to impose the highest possible penalty on the appellant is extremely rare and extraordinary because it’s not a crime for which maximum punishment should be given.
- Additionally, how can this act be considered one that involves moral turpitude?
- Singhvi mentioned that the appellant has never been convicted in any previous case.
- Further added, even if the statements given by the appellant were considered true, they would still qualify as political exaggeration or satire under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, and his criticism is protected by the right to free expression guaranteed by the constitution.
Argument from Respondent
- While Senior Advocate Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani that the appellant has a history of making impulsive statements and has no right to ask for relief for the sentence given.
- He also mentioned that in case of “Yashwant Sinha and Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director and Another” the appellant was given admonition to refrain from any inappropriate statement in future but the appellant has not complied with.
- Jethmalani argued that the statement made by the appellant was of highly serious nature. While campaigning in Kolar Karnataka before the Lok Sabha Elections 2019 the appellant intentionally said it as “Sabke Naam, Sab Choro Ke Naam Modi Modi Modi Kaise Hai”.
- It was done for 2 purposes:
- With the intention of influencing the election outcome for the BJP candidate in the Kolar constituency.
- To obtain a majority of votes from that constituency.
- The appellant further mentioned the names of well-known fugitives like Nirav Modi and Lalit Modi, who are frequently in the spotlight in the country, and deliberately associated Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s surname with these absconders to tarnish his reputation.
- The appellant made false factual statements on the surname of the Prime Minister to generate sensation.
- The Respondent said that the power under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure should only be used in the “rarest of rare cases” and that upholding the sanctity and dignity of the nation’s most prestigious institution is imperative.
RATIONALE:
There are certain factors considered by the Justices of the Supreme Court of India that are as follows:
- Defamation is mentioned as an offence under Section 499 of Indian Penal Code. Section 500 of I.P.C. provides “Whoever defames another shall be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both”. In its order dated 4th August, 2023, the Supreme Court of India questioned the reason behind the trial judge giving the maximum two-year jail sentence.
- The Court also mentioned that besides admonishing the appellant (Rahul Gandhi) in the contempt proceedings [Contempt Petition (Crl) No. 3/2019 in Yashwant Sinha and Others Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director and Another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338] the learned trial court has not given any other reason for giving the maximum sentence of two years.
- The bench considered that the learned trial judge imposed the maximum sentence of 2 years of imprisonment specifically to trigger the application of subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 which states “Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act explicitly specifies that an individual convicted of an offence punishable with imprisonment for two years or more shall be disqualified from becoming or remaining a Member of Parliament or a Member of a Legislative Assembly”.
- If the sentence had been even one day shorter, the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Act would not have been applicable.
- In the landmark 2013 ruling in “Lily Thomas Vs. U.O.I., the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 as unconstitutional.
- As the offence of defamation is non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable and it was expected by the learned trial judge to answer on what facts and circumstances decided that the two-year maximum penalty should be applied.
- The bench also mentioned that although the High Court devoted extensive pages to rejecting the application for a stay of conviction, these particular aspects were not addressed at all in their orders.
- After accepting the affidavit from the appellant, the bench put a stay on the conviction order of the trial court mentioning that it impacts not only the individual’s rights but also those of the electorate he represents in Parliament and observed that Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 has broader effects.
DEFECTS OF LAW:
Several legal flaws have been found in this case that are as follows:
- Lack of Locus Standi: The respondent failed to establish the locus standi under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which provides “No Court shall take cognizance of an offence punishable under Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) except upon a complaint made by some person aggrieved by the offence”.
- Imposition of Maximum Punishment: In a highly uncommon decision for a defamation case, the trial court gave Rahul Gandhi the maximum punishment of two years. Generally speaking, unless there are aggravating circumstances, which were not present in this instance, such offences do not justify the maximum sentence.
- Dissatisfied Reason by Trial Judge: The justification given by the trial judge for imposing the maximum sentence was not sufficient. It lacks fairness in the judiciary.
- No Previous Convictions: The appellant has no previous conviction even though the maximum punishment is imposed on him.
- Lack of Procedure in HC: The Supreme Court of India observed that the Gujarat High Court dismissed the appeal and upholds the appellant conviction given by the Surat court in his 120 pages (approx.) of long judgement but lacks the reason that why maximum punishment was imposed when the offence is non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable.
INFERENCE:
The defamation lawsuit of Rahul Gandhi serves as an illustration of how statements made during political campaigns might be covered by defamation laws. This case serves as a reminder that political leaders of all parties may face repercussions for their public remarks, even when they are made during an election campaign. Furthermore, the conviction’s temporary stay by the Supreme Court emphasises the need for proportionality in sentence.
Senior Advocate while making his submission mentioned, his intention was to defame every person with the surname Modi just because their surname happens to match that of the Prime Minister. The appellant’s statement under Section 313 of CrPC “How many of the politicians remember what they say in speeches”. Additionally said that “defamation is only one of the 22 offences under the IPC that attracts only simple imprisonment and the court should consider the stay of the sentence due to the extraordinary imposition of the maximum punishment in his case and under the given circumstances”.
Justice B.R. Gavai while replying to Tushar Mehta (the Solicitor General of India) then said that “he (the appellant) is slow to make such remarks and that he has not said anything off the cuff”.
[By: S M NAWAZ AHMAD]
CHANDIGARH UNIVERSITY
