Rahul Gandhi was recently convicted in a case of criminal defamation by a Gujarat court, after which, he was disqualified from the Parliament.
This led the opposition parties all across the nation to come together and the opposition leaders called it a Black Day for the Indian democracy.
Congress claims that Rahul Gandhi is being targetted So that he could be prevented from giving speeches in the Parliament.
He was repeatedly pointing allegations on Adani in the Parliament and was talking about PM Modi and Adani's relationship and thus they are trying to shut him up.
BJP claims that this has nothing to do with Adani and that Rahul Gandhi had abused the OBC section of the country and so he was disqualified.
What is the truth about Rahul Gandhi's disqualification?
Let's understand this defamation case better.
Rahul Gandhi: “What is the relationship between PM Narendra Modi and Adani?â€
“Whose 200 billion rupees is it? I will ask, I'm not afraid of them.â€
Ravi Shankar Prasad BJP MP: “Rahul Gandhi's problem is that he doesn't get votes.â€
This is about the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Rahul Gandhi was holding an election rally in Karnataka. There, he gave a speech in which he addressed Lalit Modi, Nirav Modi, and PM Narendra Modi as thieves.
Since this defamation case is based on this speech,
let's focus to the speech and pay attention to each word spoken by Rahul Gandhi.
"They tell you that it's a fight against black money.
They make you stand in a queue to the bank under the burning, hot sun.
They take money out of your pockets and put it into the banks."
It is evident that he is talking about the Demonetisation.
But the part that became the cause of action comes later on.
"And then you find out, Nirav Modi ran away with your money, 350 billion rupees went from your pockets to his. Mehul Choksi. Lalit Modi.
Okay, a small question, their names, the names of these thieves, how can it be Modi?
Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi, if you look a bit more, you can find some more Modis."
He asks how come these thieves are all named Modi, it's clear that he calls these 3 Modis thieves. A case was filed against Rahul Gandhi because of this and a case was filed under Sections 499 and 500 of IPC.
These deal with defamation, The meaning of the word "Defamation" is very simple. If you say anything about any person that affects their reputation that causes damage to their reputation it is known as defamation.
In India, there can be two types of defamation, civil defamation and criminal defamation.
If you cause civil defamation against anyone you might have to pay a monetary fine, but in case of criminal defamation, you might face imprisonment for a term of up to 2 years.
Section 500 of the IPC defines this punishment, "Imprisonment of 2 years with or without a fine"
And Section 499 of the IPC defines what Criminal Defamation is, it can be spoken words, published words or signs or visible representations, Wherein you damage the reputation of any person with knowledge and intention.
You might assume that one of the 3 Modis he mentioned would have filed this case.
But it wasn't so neither Nirav Modi, nor Lalit Modi, nor PM Modi filed the complaint on being called a thief, so who filed the complaint?
It was filed by BJP MLA, and former Gujarat Minister Purnesh Modi, obviously, this begs the question, How was he affected by this?
Nothing was said about him, He was mocked by many for filing this case, Satirist Rofl Gandhi said that Purnesh felt left out because he wasn't mentioned.
But if you think about it, Purnesh Modi claims that Rahul Gandhi's comment Defamed the entire Modi community in the country, this is why, I asked you to carefully listen to Rahul Gandhi's speech.
Apply some logical reasoning, if I say that the horns of cars cause noise pollution does this mean that the only source of pollution are the horns in cars?
Obviously, not, if Rahul Gandhi said that all thieves are named Modi, does that mean he said all Modis are thieves?
Absolutely, not. But interestingly, Rahul Gandhi didn't even say that, several English newspapers wrongly translated Rahul Gandhi's speech.
Times of India, Hindustan Times, NDTV, CNN, Business Today, News18 they wrote that Rahul Gandhi said, all thieves are named Modi, some even translated that all the thieves are Modis.
But BBC was one of the news reporters that correctly translated it as all these thieves are Modis.
There's a world of difference here, why are *these* thieves named Modi?
Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, and Narendra Modi, instead of asking how every thief is a Modi, explicitly, 3 people are named who happen to have the surname, Modi, with a possibility that if you look further, there might be a few more Modis, he didn't say that every thief you find will be a Modi.
Neither did he mention all the Modis in the world, Nor did he mention all the thieves in the world, he talked about the Demonetization and GST and the scams that were recently uncovered involving Lalit Modi and Nirav Modi.
PM Modi was accused of the impact of Demonetisation, how the common man and small businesses had to suffer due to this and how the crony capitalists benefited from this.
Rahul Gandhi's lawyer Kirit Panwala used this argument as a defence to prove that there was no ill intention in Rahul Gandhi's speech. Legal scholar Gautam Bhatia tweeted that there's a basic legal proposition if any statement refers to a generic class of people, the case of defamation cannot stand. Unless an individual can prove that he was directly referred to, For example, if someone claims that all lawyers are thieves.
No random lawyer can file a case of defamation against him, because the lawyer cannot prove that it was explicitly targeted towards him as an individual, it was said for all lawyers. Since no lawyer could be pinpointed, there can be no case of defamation.
Gautam Bhatia claims that it is bizarre that the judge was unaware of this basic ground.
Isn't this common sense?
Think about this, Everyone makes such generic statements.
Indian media has sold off their conscious, Police are corrupt.
Bollywood is anti-Hindu, Capitalists are destroying the Earth. We, Indians, are like thisÂIn day-to-day life, almost everyone makes such claims. This doesn't mean that the media personnel or someone from Bollywood could file a defamation case against anyone.
As an Indian, no one can file a defamation case due to any generic statement against Indians.
If this could happen, half the internet population would be wiped out and the subjects of sociology and psychology would become meaningless.
The definition given in Section 499 of IPC clarifies this.
"The imputation could be about a person, a deceased person, a company or an association or a collection of persons as such, but it has to be a readily identifiable group of people."
In this case, Rahul Gandhi did not say anything about Purnesh Modi in particular.
During cross-examination, Purnesh Modi admitted to this, that Rahul Gandhi's speech wasn't about him, personally.
Even so, the Chief Justice Magistrate of the Surat Court H.H. Verma felt the need to convict Rahul Gandhi in this case and so he issued a 168-page long judgement. He said that Rahul Gandhi could have limited his speech to Nirav Modi, Vijaya Mallaya, and Mehul Choksi. The judge noted that he intentionally made a statement that hurt all people with the surname Modi, and held that it was criminal defamation. While passing the judgement, the court awarded maximum punishment. Why?
The hon'ble court gave the justification that since Rahul Gandhi was a Member of Parliament as a Member of Parliament, he has a large impact on the public. Thus adding to the seriousness of his crime, therefore, because he was a Member of the Parliament he shouldn't be let off on minimum punishment, rather, he should be given the maximum possible punishment.
In this case, 2 years, as a lower punishment would give the wrong message to the people.
This was upheld by the hon'ble court, senior advocate and former Congress leader Kapil Sibal claims that the entire process and the outcome has been bizarre and unprecedented.
Legal process is used for political reasons, if you ask me, I agree with this opinion.
I beg the Hon'ble Judge not to file a defamation case against me, or a case of contempt of court, but I believe, today defamation is a weapon used all over the world to oppress contradicting opinions.
Take the example of Rahul Gandhi, this wasn't the only case of defamation on Rahul Gandhi, there are further 8-9 ongoing defamation cases against him.
For his speech from March 2014,
When he claimed that members of the RSS assassinated Gandhi.
It's important to note that 4 days after Gandhi's assassination Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel issued the order banning RSS. The connection between Nathuram Godse and RSS has been detailed in several books even then, this led to a defamation case against Rahul Gandhi.
In June 2018, Rahul Gandhi claimed that Amit Shah was the Director of the Ahmedabad District of Cooperative Bank and that this bank had collected ¹7.5 billion rupees in demonetized currency notes within 5 days.
Rahul Gandhi claimed that BJP became 80% richer after the demonetization another defamation case.
In April 2019, in an election rally, Rahul Gandhi labelled Amit Shah as murder-accused, BJP Chief, Amit Shah. Another defamation case, november 2022, during the Bharat Jodo Yatra, In a press briefing, Rahul Gandhi said that Savarkar betrayed other freedom fighters when he apologised to the British.
In his letter, he had written, Sir, I beg to remain your most obedient servant and signed his name. Yet another defamation case in response, so the big question facing Rahul Gandhi is that
*What can you do?*
*What can you say?*
This isn't a Congress-specific or Rahul Gandhi-specific problem, throughout the country, defamation is increasingly becoming a way of oppressing voices.
33 such defamation cases are filed against AAP leader Arvind Kejriwal.
Congress leaders, like Pawan Khera, Jairam Ramesh, and Netta D'Souza were engulfed in a civil defamation case by Smriti Irani when they claimed that her daughter Ran a bar in Goa called “Silly Souls†illegally.
When the Chief Minister of Himachal Pradesh was accused of favouring a private company he filed defamation cases against BJP leaders Arun Jaitley and Prem Kumar Dhumal.
AAP leader Satyendra Jain filed a defamation suit against Kapil Mishra who shifted from BJP to AAP.
Congress leader Vivek Tankha filed a ₹100 million suit against Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Shivraj Singh Chauhan.
In connection with the OBC quota in panchayat polls in 2014, Shivraj Singh Chauhan filed a defamation case against Madhya Pradesh Congress leader KK Mishra.
When he was accused of the MP Professional Board Scam, after this controversy, Congress leader Renuka Chowdhary claims that she will file a defamation case against PM Narendra Modi because he compared her to Surpanakha, a character from Ramayana, that's not all, a person once filed a defamation case in the Allahabad High Court against former President of the US Barack Obama.
Till now, I was merely listing the defamation cases against our politicians, but politicians are often rich, when the average individual is concerned, when these defamation cases are used to oppress their voices, to oppress the voices of activists and media, this turns dangerous.
"Freedom of expression is the most important freedom. So the law of defamation definitely has a chilling effect on it."
Between 2012 and 2021 AIADMK filed around 130 defamation cases against their political opponents, anti-corruption activists, NGOs, news editors, newspapers, and TV networks.
Interestingly, these cases weren’t filed by a political party or individual persons, instead, they were filed by the government of Tamil Nadu, when AIADMK party was in power.
Though when the DMK party came into power in July 2021, Tamil Nadu's Chief Minister MK Stalin issued orders to withdraw these cases.
In 2017, an NCB politician filed a case against an activist who alleged that the politician was receiving special perks in jail.
In 2013, AAP filed a defamation case against a web portal and TV channel claiming that the sting operation run by the channel was fake.
This problem exists outside India as well, Italian PM Georgia Meloni filed a defamation case against writer Roberto Saviano when he published comments on the PM's policy involving migrants.
Last year, UNESCO published a report expressing concern they claimed that there are about 160 such countries where defamation is still criminalised and that defamation laws were being misused.
UNESCO suggested that the defamation issue should be looked at from the perspective of Freedom of Speech.
Even the Indian Supreme Court had said this once when a case filed by the Jayalalitha government was being discussed.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court said that defamation cases should not be used as a political weapon against the critics of the government.
There should be no defamation case simply because someone called the government corrupt.
This is why, there have been discussions on decriminalizing Defamation.
If you look at its history, the law of defamation was introduced in the IPC in 1860 by the British government. Basically, this is a 160-year old law that was passed down to us by the British imperialists.
The ones who made this law, moved on from this but we continue using this obsolete law, in 2009, the Sedition Law was repealed in the UK, and defamation was decriminalised.
But in India, not only do we have a law for criminal defamation but also the sedition law.
Moving on from the political context, it is crucial to decriminalize defamation so that large corporations cannot oppress individuals.
You can find many examples of this in 2018, Anil Ambani filed 28 defamation cases in Ahmedabad.
8 of these cases were against the politicians from the opposition party.
But 20 cases were against media organisations and journalists, when the news of the alleged Rafale scam broke out,
Anil Ambani filed a defamation case against senior journalist Seema Mustafa the founding editor of The Citizen, for ¹70 billion, against NDTV for ¹100 billion and against National Herald for ‚¹50 billion rupees for their report.
In April 2014, Anil Ambani and Mukesh Ambani filed defamation cases against Paranjoy Guha Thakurta after the release of his book Gas Wars in which he highlighted the alleged irregularities in the price of natural gas.
Paranjay Guha Thakurta faced another defamation case filed by Adani Power for writing an article on the alleged relationship between PM Modi and Gautam Adani.
You can find many such articles, if the media and journalists do not have even this much freedom to talk about politicians and corporate scams
How can we unearth any scam?
So it's not surprising that India's Press Freedom Index Ranking has fallen to the 150th position in 2022, the efforts to decriminalise defamation began in 2015 when Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, BJP leader Subramanian Swamy, and AAP Chief Arvind Kejriwal, filed a joint plea to the Supreme Court to decriminalise defamation.
So that the provisions of criminal defamation is repealed and there can be only civil defamation so that one needs to pay fines if convicted and without any imprisonment.
Simply because this is a vastly exploited law but the Central Government opposed this saying that it is important to maintain defamation's criminality.
And the Hon'ble Supreme Court upheld the same. It does'nt mean that the law of defamation should be entirely repealed in my opinion, the law of defamation is necessary.
There are many cases where someone's reputation is truly maligned with false accusations by one individual to another but in my opinion, it should definitely be decriminalised.
If someone is convicted of defamation, they should have to pay a monetary fine but there should be no threat of imprisonment.
Second, even in the cases of civil defamation, the claims amount to millions and billions of rupees, that too can be threatening.
How can a journalist or activist afford this large amount?
There should be controlled limits for this as well, third, the courts need to ensure that defamation is not used as a political weapon.
And fourth, to some extent, the media should be afforded immunity from such cases, even if some claims prove to be false it should be mandatory to prove actual intention.
Whatever was expressed was done with the intention to damage another person's reputation. We diverted a lot from the original topic. Because I felt that this was the right opportunity to talk about this significant issue.
Rahul Gandhi got bail by paying a ₹10,000 bond and he has 30 days to file an appeal, after the conviction, the Lok Sabha Secretariat issued a notice which stated that Rahul Gandhi was disqualified from the Lok Sabha as of 23rd March.
This disqualification was triggered under the Representation of The People Act (RPA), 1951. Specifically, Section 8(3) of the RPA.
It contains that if anyone is convicted and sentenced to a minimum of 2 years of imprisonment, they will be disqualified. And this disqualification would continue for 6 years after the release from jail.
Earlier, there was Section 8(4) it held the disqualification would come into effect only 3 months after the conviction.
But in July 2013, the Supreme Court passed a landmark judgement in which they struck down Section 8(4). The court said that it was unconstitutional for the Parliament to delay the disqualification.
The same year, the UPA government issued an ordinance to nullify this Supreme Court verdict.
The UPA government was hoping to bring in a slightly modified version of Section 8(4). This received Cabinet approval as well, it's suspected that the ordinance was brought in to benefit RJD Chief Lalu Prasad Yadav because he was convicted in the Foddar Scam.
But on 28th September 2013, Rahul Gandhi, during a press conference, called this ordinance complete nonsense. This was quite embarrassing for the UPA government and on 2nd October, the ordinance was withdrawn.
So the law remained that as soon as the politician is convicted he would be immediately disqualified.
The first politician to be disqualified like this was Congress leader Rasheed Masood in October 2013, when he was convicted in a corruption case.
A day later, Lalu Prasad Yadav and JDU politician Jagdish Sharma were similarly disqualified from the Lok Sabha.
The question arises, what would happen to Rahul Gandhi next?
If you look at Section 151A of the RPA, it says that if the next election is to be held after a year or more, the Election Commission has the right to fill the vacancy of the seat of the disqualified politician by holding a byelection and the byelection should be held within 6 months from the vacancy.
Legal experts opine that Rahul Gandhi can approach the Speaker to revive his status as a Member of Parliament if he gets a judicial order stating that his conviction has been stayed but he will need to hurry.
Before the Election Commission announces the byelections Congress has already said that they will appeal to the higher court against the conviction of the Surat Court.
So it is expected that this would be the next step in this case.
Overall, the biggest issue here is how The government has another legal process for quashing the opposition, before this, we witnessed how governments can be overthrown by buying MLAs.
Opposition politicians are offered millions to usurp the government and our media famously calls it an Operation.
As if it was a healthy, positive action. Second, we see how agencies like CBI and ED are used to target opposition politicians specifically.
Offering bribes, and then threatening, but if none of these work defamation is another option, some people would argue that it is simply a legal process and there's nothing wrong with it.
But we have undeniable evidence of how these cases, these legal processes, work for only one side and stop working for the other side.
Kushbhu Sundar is a BJP politician she was in Congress earlier, in 2018, she had tweeted:
"Here's Modi, there's Modi, Modi is everywhere.
But what's this? Modi is followed by the surname Bhrastachaar [Corrupt].
You need to understand this. Modi means corruption.
Let's change the meaning of Modi to corruption.
Suits better."Â
This tweet is now viral but,
Will any person with the surname Modi file a case against Kushbhu Sundar?
You can find many such instances where the PM Modi defames Pandit Nehru, saying baseless things about him.
Or about Rahul Gandhi or some other person, people from the other side can file a case but will the courts proceed with the case?
Will the legal process be carried on in the same neutral manner?
On 25th March, Rahul Gandhi took to Twitter:
"I saw fear in the eyes of the Prime Minister. He is afraid of my next speech in Parliament on Adani. It's a direct question, Whose money was the ₹200 billion invested in the Adani Group by shell companies as foreign funds?"
"LIC funds go to Adani, SBI funds go to Adani, EPFO funds also go to Adani. Even after MODANI revelations, why is the citizen's retirement fund being invested in Adani's companies? Hon'ble Prime Minister, neither investigations nor explanations, Why are you so scared?"