Challenging his conviction in a defamation case, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi said he was subject to an “unfair trial” and BJP leader Purnesh Modi’s criminal defamation complaint against him was politically motivated. Modi’s criminal defamation complaint filed on April 15 2019, was made in “hot haste” with a view to using the same for electoral purposes in the run-up to the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
Gandhi was campaigning in Kolar, Karnataka on April 13 as part of his poll campaign for the then-upcoming Lok Sabha elections.
In his appeal filed before a sessions court on April 3, Gandhi argued that the “political angle” of the case was evident at the trial where it was projected that the Congress leader defamed Prime Minister Narendra Modi. An objective reading of the complaint would show that it was really being filed in reaction to the alleged speech being sharply critical of the head of the Government, the grounds of appeal read.
The appeal reasoned that if that was the case, then only Prime Narendra Modi, not BJP leader Purnesh Modi, could have filed a defamation complaint. The patently political nature of the case against Gandhi looms large over the entire proceedings, the appeal filed before a sessions judge read.
A Surat court on March 23 sentenced Gandhi to two years in jail for his 2019 remark “how come all the thieves have Modi as their common surname”. The two-year jail term following Gandhi’s conviction in a criminal defamation case resulted in his disqualification as a Lok Sabha MP.
BOOM recaps the main grounds of appeal.
If PM Modi defamed, then only he can file complaint
In his appeal, Gandhi argued that BJP leader Purnesh Modi’s criminal defamation complaint against him was politically motivated.
Gandhi contended that BJP leader Purnesh Modi was not an aggrieved person for the purposes of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalises defamation and thus had no right to file the complaint. If Gandhi allegedly defamed the prime minister than “…only Shri Narendra Modi can file a complaint for the same and Shri Purnesh Modi the respondent/complainant has no right to file the complaint on his behalf…”.
The appeal pointed out that anybody can trigger criminal proceedings against an accused, but so far as defamation under Sections 499 and 500 is concerned, only the person who is directly affected can file the complaint.
Merely because the complainant is a Modi and the allegedly defamatory speech had the 'Modi' does not give Purnesh Modi the right to file a complaint, the appeal said.
Complain against Gandhi politically motivated
Gandhi alleged that the patently political nature of the case against him looms large over the entire proceedings. The ex-Wayanad MP said he has been “treated harshly both on the merits of the controversy as well as at the stage of determination of sentence taking into account his position as a Member of Parliament”.
“A Parliamentarian, in opposition, is expected, rather, required to be vigilant and critical,” the appeal read. As the opposition leader, he must be vigilant and critical of the government. While performing his duties as a government critic it is likely to cause annoyance and/or embarrassment to those in power, Gandhi said.
“By the very nature of his task a politician in opposition cannot always weigh his words in golden scales, he said adding that it is thus “incumbent upon the courts to focus on the essence and spirit of the speech made rather than on the tone and tenor.”
Trial courts could not establish Gandhi defamed 13 crore Modis
Rahul Gandhi pointed out that in his 2019 Kolar speech needed to be read as a whole. The statement in question dealt with “rival ideologies of the two political formations in a political contest.”
Gandhi said he was critically commenting on the economic policies of the incumbent government led by Prime Minister Modi. “The falsehood of rosy promises made to the electorate was exposed and a close nexus between the highest political executive on the one hand and big and mighty economic offenders on the other was brought to surface, the appeal added.
“In this statement, as many as six people were mentioned as economic beneficiaries, namely, Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi, Vijay Mallya, Lalit Modi and Anil Ambani,” it said. “It is the undisputed position that some of these persons did not carry or bear ‘Modi’ as the caste or surname. What distinguishes these persons as a group, was the manner in which they carried out their economic activity to the detriment of the national interest and their apparent closeness with the powers that be,” the appeal said.
Gandhi highlighted that there is no ‘Modi Samaj’ or community established on record making it difficult for him to have defamed an entire community.
Gandhi added that along with Hindus, even Muslims and Parsis use the surname ‘Modi’. “Modis are 13 crores and obviously as per the ratio of the aforesaid judgments all 13 crore people will not have a right to file the complaint because it is not identifiable, definite, determinate group or collection of persons...,” the appeal said.
