'Modi-Thief' Remark: Jharkhand High Court Dismisses Rahul Gandhi's Plea To Quash Defamation Case Against Himself
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the plea moved by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking to quash the defamation case filed against him for his alleged statement, "why all thieves share the Modi surname".The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, in its order, observed that the 'right of reputation', as per the judicial interpretation is the dimension of the right of life and also...
The Jharkhand High Court has dismissed the plea moved by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking to quash the defamation case filed against him for his alleged statement, "why all thieves share the Modi surname".
The Bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, in its order, observed that the 'right of reputation', as per the judicial interpretation is the dimension of the right of life and also comes within the ambit of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
It may be noted that while campaigning for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Rahul Gandhi had allegedly made the statement in question ["why all thieves share the Modi surname"].
The Bench also observed that whether the entire Modi community was defamed by the alleged utterances of Gandhi was a matter to be inquired into by the trial court. Further, the Court prima facie found the cognizance order of the court [under section 500 of the I.P.C] to be valid.
The facts in brief
Essentially, for his alleged objectionable remark on 'Modi' surname, an advocate named Pradeep Modi had filed a complaint in Ranchi Court objecting to his statement calling all people with Modi surname, thieves. The complainant had also sought Rs 20 crore from Rahul Gandhi for defaming people with Modi surname.
It was submitted by Advocate Modi that he and the other members of the Modi clan felt insulted, defamed, and humiliated by such derogatory and defamatory remarks made by Gandhi for the entire Modi clan of the country.
The district court had, after taking cognizance of the case, issued summons to Gandhi to appear before it in person or through his counsel. Against the cognizance taking order, Gandhi had moved to the High Court.
Arguments advanced by Gandhi's counsel
Gandhi's counsel argued that in terms of Explanation-2 of section 499 of I.P.C only a person who has been aggrieved can maintain a complaint under Explanation-2 of section 499 I.P.C.
It was further submitted that ingredients of section 499 read with Explanation-2 of the I.P.C. was not made out so far as Gandhi is concerned.
It may be noted that Explanation-2 of section 499 I.P.C makes it clear that defamation takes place when someone makes an imputation concerning a company or an association or collection of persons as such.
Court's observations
At the outset, the Court noted that the O.P.No.2/Complainant (Advocate Pradeep Modi) is of the same community whose name has been taken along with other persons by Gandhi, and therefore, the Court added, whether the community is identifiable, definite and determined body can be proved by way of leading evidence in the trial.
"In the case in hand, the particular group of community is the local resident of Ranchi and it is an admitted fact that the statement was made at Ranchi and whether the 'Modi community' is the collection of persons within the meaning of Explanation-2 of section 499 I.P.C or not, this is the subject matter of trial. It has to be found out as to whether the particular class has been defamed or not," the Court further remarked.
However, the Court did make an observation that since the O.P.No.2 is a practicing advocate of the Jharkhand High Court and the speech was made at Ranchi, thus, the Modi community of Ranchi was also affected.
In view of this, the Court further observed that the Modi community is spread over India as well as abroad and the statement was made at Ranchi and therefore, as to whether the person can be singled out individually to say that he has also been defamed and the community, association in terms of Explanation-2 of section 499 I.P.C are made out or not are the subject matter of trial.
In this regard, the Court also referred to the Apex Court's ruling in the case of Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi & Ors. where the entire Marwari community was allegedly defamed and the Top Court had said that the facts are to be proved in the trial and prima facie all the Marwari community has been defamed in view of the statement.
Consequently, noting that prima facie the entire Modi community have been defamed by the alleged utterance of this petitioner, the Court found justification in the cognizance order of the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi by stating that the Court had applied his judicial mind and after disclosing the prima facie materials and thereafter, took the cognizance.
In view of the above facts, the Court came to the conclusion that all the contentions are required to be proved in the trial, and the HC was not required to roam into and come to the conclusion at this stage as to whether Eplanation-2 of section 499 I.P.C has been proved or not.
Case title - Rahul Gandhi v. The State of Jharkhand and another
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Jha) 65
Click Here To Read/Download Order