Supreme Court grants relief to Rahul Gandhi in PM Modi comments case
The case relates to Rahul Gandhi's alleged remarks on the Rafale fighter jet deal in 2018.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has received temporary relief from the Supreme Court in a criminal defamation case related to comments allegedly made by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, referring to him as ‘the leader of thieves’ and ‘commander-in-thief’. The apex court has imposed a stay on the ongoing proceedings in the lower court. However, the court has not dismissed the case. Further consideration will be given to Rahul Gandhi's petition. This case is linked to Rahul Gandhi's alleged comments regarding the Rafale fighter jet deal in 2018.
Live Law reports that a bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Apresh Kumar Singh issued a notice on Rahul Gandhi's petition, seeking a response within four weeks. Gandhi has challenged the Bombay High Court's order dated September 8, which denied the dismissal of the criminal defamation case against him. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared on behalf of Gandhi in the Supreme Court.
The bench stated in its order that a notice should be issued, to which a response should be provided within four weeks. In the meantime, further proceedings in the lower court will remain stayed. Following this order, the trial in the related case will not proceed for now. The Supreme Court will consider Gandhi's challenge and the responses from the concerned parties.
This case is related to a complaint filed by BJP worker Mahesh ShreeShrimal. He alleged before a metropolitan magistrate that Rahul Gandhi's comments harm the reputation of Prime Minister Narendra Modi as well as the BJP and its members. The magistrate had issued a summons to Rahul Gandhi based on the complaint.
The complainant argues that calling the Prime Minister ‘the leader of thieves’ implies that other BJP members are also being portrayed as ‘thieves’. According to him, such comments do not only affect the Prime Minister's reputation but also that of party workers. On this basis, he claimed to have the right to file a defamation complaint.
It is noteworthy that Rahul Gandhi made this comment against PM Modi concerning the Rafale fighter jet deal.
Rahul Gandhi had challenged the magistrate's summons and the proceedings of the case in the Bombay High Court. His main argument was that the complaint by the BJP worker was not maintainable. Gandhi's side stated that the relevant comment did not mention the BJP or any other political party. No specific and identifiable group was targeted either. Senior advocate Sudip Pasbola argued on behalf of Rahul Gandhi in the High Court that when there is no clearly affected individual or group, the complainant does not have the legal right to pursue the case. He stated that merely inferring that the comments apply to party workers is not sufficient grounds to continue criminal defamation proceedings.
However, the Bombay High Court did not accept this argument. The court stated that the BJP is a registered national political party and therefore its identity can be recognized as a specific organization. The High Court also noted the complainant's statement that he has been an active member of the BJP for the past two decades.
According to the Bombay High Court,
the Prime Minister is a member of the BJP. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to consider the comment calling him ‘commander-in-thief’ as limited to just the senior leadership of the party at the initial level. The court stated that the actual intent of the comment and its impact on party members should be considered during the trial.
On this basis, the High Court found no illegality in the magistrate's order and denied the dismissal of the case. To support its conclusion, the court cited a decision from the Delhi High Court related to Shashi Tharoor, which stated that due to registration, a political party can be considered a specific and identifiable organization.
Opposing Rahul Gandhi's petition, Maharashtra's Advocate General Dr. Milind Sathe stated that,
the court should examine whether the essential elements of defamation are present and whether the comments relate to a specific, identifiable group. He argued that once such a group is established, an affected individual can file a complaint, so proceedings should not be terminated at the outset.
After hearing the arguments of the complainant, Rahul Gandhi, and the Maharashtra government, the High Court reserved its decision in February. Now, the main question before the Supreme Court is whether the alleged comments constitute criminal defamation and whether a party worker can file a complaint when the comments do not explicitly mention the party or its members. For now, the apex court has imposed a temporary stay on the proceedings instead of giving a final decision on this dispute.