In Criminal Revision Application No 521 of 2023 decided by Justice Hemant M Prachchhak of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, the observations made by the Court in declining to stay the Conviction of the former Lok Sabha MP are relevant: “60. Further, the fact that the petitioner is a senior leader of the oldest political party in India with a large presence and a prominent figure in the realm of the Indian political landscape, also ensures that every utterance of the petitioner automatically gets large-scale publicity. In the modern electronic media environment, this large-scale publicity is lightning quick, difficult to contain and leaves a permanent imprint in the form of website links, videos, etc. The petitioner is assumed to be aware of the same and being a public personality is vested with the duty to exercise this vast power at his disposal with caution ensuring that dignity and reputation of a large number of persons or any identifiable class is not jeopardised due to his political activities or utterances.”
“61. In the present case, in light of the above, the following additional countervailing factors operate against the petitioner which increase the seriousness of the offence in the present facts and circumstances:
* Defamation is an offence of public character wherein the fundamental right to reputation and dignity is involved;
* The conviction of the petitioner involves the impairment of the cherished fundamental right to dignity and reputation of a large segment of the population;
* The public standing of the petitioner and the fact that any utterance of the petitioner attracts large-scale publication gravely impairs and damages the reputation of the complainant and the identifiable class in question.”
In order to afford context to the observations made by the Single Judge of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, it would be apt to recollect that on 23 March 2023, a Surat court convicted Rahul Gandhi in a 2019 defamation case and sentenced him to two years in prison.
The case, filed by former Gujarat minister & BJP MLA from Surat West, Purnesh Modi, pertains to remarks made by Gandhi at a Lok Sabha election rally in Kolar, Karnataka on April 13, 2019, where he had said, "In sab choro ke naam Modi Modi-Modi how is it? Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi and if you search a little more, many more Modis will emerge.”
(The above statement has been cited from the Wikipedia page pertaining to Indian Politician: Rahul Gandhi)
Consequently, the BBC News Website on March 24, 2023, published a news Article titled: Parliament membership of Rahul Gandhi canceled, understand the whole matter.
The article stated: “Rahul Gandhi's membership of Parliament under section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, on 24 March 2023, due to his conviction by a Gujarat court in a 2019 defamation case and sentencing him to two years' imprisonment has been abolished.”
Now from the perspective of the various Case Laws and precedents of the Supreme Court and the various State High Courts, the following points ought to emerge in thought:
In Maulik Kotak v State of Maharashtra (2014), the Bombay High Court ruled that only the individual who was wronged and defamed may file a defamation complaint.
Justice A P Bhangale in Cri W P 64/2003 on 19 June, 2013, held: “7. In sequel to the discussion as above I must conclude that the imputations were not against the complainants personally nor the published article was aimed at them so as to legally enable them to lodge and persecute the complaints against the Petitioners for defamation, hence this is fit case to quash and set aside the complaints.”
In the above Criminal Writ Petition No. 64/2003 it was argued that in G Narsimhan & others vs TV Chokkappa AIR 1972 SC 2609, “That the collection of persons must be identifiable, definite and determinate class in relation to the imputations. Complaint by an individual who is not the "person aggrieved" within meaning of section 199 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code for alleged defamation of 'Dada' and 'Didi' is not maintainable. Honourable Supreme Court in the aforesaid ruling held that conviction would be illegal and void if a complaint for defamation is by one who is not the 'aggrieved person'.”
Incidentally, while considering the pendency of 10 other Cases against the former Lok Sabha MP from the Wayanad Constituency, the observations of the Punjab and Haryana High Court on March 11, 2023, would be relevant here:
Justice Sandeep Moudgil has ruled that strict adherence to the rule of looking at the criminal antecedents of an accused at the time of granting bail will in all probability result in its denial.
Justice Sandeep Moudgil, Punjab & Haryana High Court: “The strict adherence to the rule of denial of bail on account of pendency of other cases/convictions will in all probability lend the petitioner in a situation of denial of concession of bail.”
The assertion came as Justice Sandeep Moudgil drew a distinction between regular bail, anticipatory bail and suspension of sentence.
Another relevant consideration is that Section 499 covers the definition of defamation and specific situations in which making a false remark about another person does not constitute defamation.
Defamation is exempt from the following situation: Imputation of Truth That Must Be Made or Published for the Benefit of the Public.
It does not amount to defamation if a factual imputation or accusation is made about a person. Nonetheless, it must be done in the public interest.
Interestingly, the majority of persons whom the Former MP cited in his Speech were actually involved in high-profile misappropriation of public trust.
Moreover in Sahib Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (1965): “The Apex Court while discussing Explanation No 2 of Section 499, which covers a person including a collection of persons, held that the collection of persons must be identifiable in the sense that one could with certainty say that this group of particular people has been defamed as distinguished from the rest of the community and further it has also been held that it is a matter of evidence.”
