'Not In Good Taste': Delhi High Court On Rahul Gandhi's Speech Against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, Directs ECI To Take Action

The Delhi High Court on Thursday said that the speech made by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on November 22 in Rajasthan's Nadbai against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and calling him, along with Home Minister Amit Shah and Gautam Adami as “pick pocketors”, was “not in good taste.”

A division bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Mini Pushkarna was informed by Advocate Suruchi Suri, the counsel representing Election Commission of India (ECI), that a show cause notice was issued to Gandhi on November 23.

Noting that the last date to reply to the notice expired on November 25, the court directed ECI to decide the matter against Gandhi within eight weeks.

“The deadline is over and no reply has been received by the ECI. This court directs the ECI to decide the matter, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within eight weeks,” the court said.

It disposed of a public interest litigation seeking action and registration of FIR against Rahul Gandhi for making “sensational speeches” recently in Rajasthan against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and calling him a “panauti” and “a pickpocket.”

The court said that since the ECI is taking action in the matter, the same should be left to the statutory body.

“Ultimately people are hearing all this. They know what is to be done. Let's have faith on the people. We can only say that it is not in good taste. We cannot…Union of India is not stopped (from making guidelines). They don't need us. Nothing stops them. They will prepare guidelines,” the court said.

It added: “First, the ECI is doing it. Two, this is something which the people are hearing on a daily basis. They are giving verdict on a daily basis….We are all sovereign bodies. We don't give directions to each other. We will tell them to decide it within eight weeks.”

The PIL, moved by a lawyer Bharat Nagar, also sought framing of guidelines to provide for an effective mechanism for redressal of the matters pertaining to “false and vilifying speeches” made during elections “for influencing the outcome”, till any such legislation or policy are brought in place by the authorities.

Senior Advocates Adish C Aggarwala and Kirti Uppal appearing for Nagar said that they were seeking framing of an effective mechanism to deal with false and vilifying speeches made by political leaders during elections.

“There is a bar in the model code of conduct but nothing about what action to be taken against the political leaders. We have given an example of X (Rahul Gandhi) where statements have been made alleging the Prime Minister, Home Minister as pick pocketers….There is no provision, we want a mechanism to be there which controls this,” Aggarwala said.

Hearing this, the bench said that the call in the matter is to be taken by the parliament as courts cannot legislate in such issues.

“Let them see. We don't legislate. Parliament legislates…..In an election, people give result, no?….We can't interfere in all this,” the court remarked.

It added: “You're right that call has to be taken but that has to be taken by the parliament. Let the parliament take a call.”

It added: “Statements and speeches may be made in poor taste but the issue is, this sort of action is to be taken by the aggrieved parties. They will file proper proceedings. The only question is, if the three individuals you're naming, if aggrieved, they will file proceedings.”

“The allegations made by Rahul Gandhi are without their being any proofs available in public domain and Rahul Gandhi should be asked to prove that Narendra Modi, Amit Shah and Gautam Adani are "Jeb Katra-Pick Pocket",” the plea stated.

In the alternative, Nagar had also sought Rahul Gandhi to place on record the proof before court against Prime Minister, Home Minister and Gautam Adani to prove truth in his statements and other claims made in the speech.

The PIL also sought examination of the genuinity of Rahul Gandhi's statements and registration of an FIR by the Delhi Police, if found satisfactory.

Nagar had sought registration of FIR against Gandhi for the offences under Sections 171(d), 171(f), 171 (g), 406, 419, 426 and 463 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and Section 123 of Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The plea added that the Election Commission of India has limited powers to only issue a "Show Cause Notice" to Rahul Gandhi, to which he may or may not reply to it.

Nagar had further said the process js faulty because serious allegations made by Rahul Gandhi may turn out to have massive impact on the voters, who might have already voted by the time the reply to the Show Cause Notice is filed.

Title: BHARAT NAGAR v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 1321