Weaponising the defamation law: A closer look at the Rahul Gandhi verdict

Published : Mar 27, 2023 17:03 IST - 10 MINS READ According to an apocryphal story from the erstwhile Soviet Union, a peasant stood in the market square and shouted that the minister for agriculture was a fool. Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act says: “A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years other than any offence referred to in sub-section or sub-section ] shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.” In the Lily Thomas case, the Supreme Court had ruled that “…once a person who was a member of either House of Parliament or House of the State Legislature becomes disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament under Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution, his seat automatically falls vacant…”. The Rahul Gandhi case Coming to the present case in Surat, it arose out of a speech in Kolar in Karnataka where Rahul Gandhi reportedly said: “…One small question, how are the names of all these thieves ‘Modi, Modi, Modi’… Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi….” However, none of the three named Modis filed a criminal complaint or a civil suit for defamation on being called thieves. This group of persons would be covered by Explanation 2 and could, therefore, be the subject of defamation.” The court held: “We have not been referred to any case relating to Section 499 IPC in support of the contention for the appellant that the public prosecutor and assistant public prosecutors at Aligarh could not form such a body of persons as would be covered by Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC.” In a later decision in 2010 in Khushboo Sundar, the court reviewed the earlier case law, including a 1972 case of G. Narasimhan involving The Hindu newspaper, which had said: “…Undoubtedly, the explanation is wide but in order to demonstrate the offence of defamation such a collection of persons must be an identifiable body so that it is possible to say with precision that a group of particular persons, as distinguished from the rest of the community, stood defamed. Furthermore, if it is not possible to ascertain the composition of such a class, the criminal prosecution cannot proceed…” The court went on to suggest: “In fact, it is the reputation of an individual person which must be in question and only such a person can claim to have ‘a legal peg for a justifiable claim to hang on’.” “Collection of persons” I submit that people with an identical surname do not form a “collection of persons” as is contemplated under the criminal law of defamation.