Defamation Case| Modi Community An 'Identifiable' Class, Rahul Gandhi Has A Duty Not To Jeopardise Reputation Of Large Section Of People: Gujarat HC

Dismissing Congress leader and Former MP Rahul Gandhi's revision plea to stay the conviction in the criminal defamation case over his 'Modi Thieves' remark, the Gujarat High Court today observed that the case against Gandhi concerns a large identifiable class (Modi Community) and not just an individual.

The Court added that being a senior leader of the oldest political party in India and a "prominent figure in the realm of the Indian political landscape", Gandhi is vested with a duty to ensure that the dignity and reputation of a large number of persons or any identifiable class is not "jeopardised" due to his political activities or utterances.

With this, the bench of Justice Hemant Prachchhak upheld the Surat Sessions Court April 20th order refusing to stay Gandhi's conviction in connection with the case in question wherein Gandhi has been found guilty of defaming the 'Modi community' by making a remark during the 2019 Lok Sabha campaign ["Why do all thieves have Modi in their names"].

Significantly, the HC also took note of other complaints pending against Gandhi, including one filed by the grandson of Vir Savarkar in the Pune Court. The HC noted that in the alleged speech, Gandhi used defamation utterances against Vir Savarkar at Cambridge University.

"Serious offence"

In its 125-page order, the High Court has noted that Gandhi took the name of the Prime Minister to add 'sensation' to his speech with an apparent intention to affect the result of the election of the candidate in favour of whom he was campaigning at the relevant point in time and therefore, the case would fall within the category of the seriousness of the offence, justifying the denial of benefit of a stay on his conviction.

The Court further added that Gandhi's alleged act would also amount to an offence punishable under Section 171G of the IPC [False statement in connection with an election] also and hence, it could be said that the offence punishable under Section 499 of the IPC is committed with an intention to make a false statement in connection with election.

The Court also said that the case also falls within the category of moral turpitude also as Gandhi, being a Member of Parliament, possessing a high position in the society and having bounden duty not to scandalize any person from the society, breached the modesty, by influencing the election on the basis of false fact.

In response to the argument that the alleged offence isn't serious as it provides for a maximum punishment of only 2 years, the Court said that the maximum punishment in any offence is not the only indicator of the seriousness of the offence and that there may be other factors, having a larger impact on the society as a whole and the enormity of the issue at hand.

"The offence of Section 499 can certainly be considered to be a serious offence of having a large public character thereby affecting the society at large in a given case wherein a large number of persons of the society have been defamed."

"Modi community an identifiable class of persons"

Regarding the argument made by Gandhi's Counsel (Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi) that the 'Modi community' is a non-identifiable class of persons, the Court said that the same is a mixed question of law and facts and the Magistrate appreciated this aspect in his March 23 order which is sustainable in the eyes of law.

"...the complaint is filed for defamation of persons having “Modi” surname and the persons belonging to “Modi Community”. Undisputedly, respondent no.1 (Punesh Modi) is having “Modi” surname and also belonging to “Modi Community”. Now, “Modi” surname holder and member of “Modi Community” are certainly identifiable / well defined class. Further, “Modi” people are a fraction of Ganchi / Taili / Modhvanik Ghnyati, as per the evidence and thus, again a well-defined identifiable/suable class. Like persons are having “Patel” Community as well as a surname, “Jain” Community as well as surname, “Modi” is also a community and surname both," the Court said.

Importantly, the Court further noted that another factor which compounds the case against Gandhi is that the defamation alleged was of a large identifiable class and not just an individual and due to this, the conviction partook the character of an offence affecting a large section of the public and not just a case of individual-centric defamation.

"No injustice to Gandhi if conviction not stayed"

In its order, the Court made a categorical finding that if the conviction is not stayed no injustice will be caused to Rahul Gandhi. In this regard, the Court said that the Criminal antecedents of the accused are a relevant consideration and Gandhi has 10 criminal cases to his name.

The Court also added that a public servant losing his job is not a consideration/ ground to exercise the discretion u/s. 389(1) of the CrPC. The Court further observed that a right to be elected is neither a fundamental right nor common law right, but at best, it is a pure and simple statutory right.

Against this backdrop, the Court found that Gandhi was trying to seek a stay of his conviction on absolutely non-existent grounds and that a stay of conviction is not a rule but an exception to be resorted to in rare cases.

However, the Court requested the concerned District Judge to decide the criminal appeal on its own merits and in accordance with the law as expeditiously as possible.

On March 23, 2023, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat convicted and sentenced Gandhi to 2 years imprisonment, following which he was disqualified as a member of Lok Sabha. However, his sentence was suspended, and he was also granted bail on the same day to enable him to move an appeal against his conviction within 30 days.

On April 3, Gandhi approached the Surat Sessions Court assailing his conviction and further seeking a stay on his conviction, which was rejected on April 20. However, Surat Sessions Court on April 3 granted bail to Gandhi till the disposal of his appeal.

Case title - Rahul Gandhi vs. Purnesh Ishvarbhai Modi

Case Citation: 2023 Livelaw (Guj) 114

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment