'Modi Thieves' Remark| 'Defamation Case Pending In Patna Court Hit By Double Jeopardy Doctrine', Rahul Gandhi Submits In High Court

An affidavit has been filed on behalf of Rahul Gandhi before the Patna High Court contending that the Defamation case filed against him by Rajya Sabha MP Sushil Kumar Modi in Patna Court over his 'Modi-Theives' remark, is hit by the doctrine of “double jeopardy”.

It may be noted that the supplementary affidavit has been filed in the quashing plea filed by Rahul Gandhi in the year 2019 challenging the defamation case filed by Modi before the Patna Court. This development comes days after the Patna Court directed Gandhi to appear before it on April 25 to record his statements under section 313 CrPC. 

The affidavit has been filed by Kumar Ashish, an AICC Member, on behalf of Gandhi arguing that he has already been convicted by Surat Court for the same remark which is at the centre of a defamation complaint filed by Sushil Modi before the Patna Court. 

#ModiSurnameRemark Case | Patna Court directs Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) to appear before the court on April 12 to record his statements in the #Defamation case filed against him by Rajya Sabha MP Sushil Kumar Modi (@SushilModi). pic.twitter.com/eSTtGYIYVF

— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) April 1, 2023

The affidavit further pleads that since the alleged remark “why all thieves share the Modi surname” made during a political campaign in Karol in April 2019, Gandhi has been tried and convicted by the Surat Court, therefore, now the case pending before the Patna Court would be hit by the doctrine of double jeopardy as enshrined under Section 300 of CrPC and Article 20 (2) of the Constitution of India.

For context, while Article 20 (2) states that no person shall be prosecuted and punished for the same offence more than once, Section 300 (1) CrPC bars the trial of a person not only for the same offence but also for any other offence on the same facts.

In this regard, the affidavit further states that in the instant case that the fact in issue, questions of law involved and the accused are one and the same and the same speech is the foundation both in the instant as well as in the case at Surat, and the only difference is that the complainants in the two cases are different. 

Against this backdrop, the affidavit prays for the quashing of the case. 

Importantly, while filing this affidavit, Advocate Ansul, who is representing Gandhi in the case, mentioned the matter before Justice Sandeep Kumar of the Patna High Court for an early hearing of the case. Accepting his request, Justice Kumar posted the matter for hearing on April 24.

It may be noted that the Patna Court is presently dealing with a criminal complaint filed by Sushil Modi (through Senior Advocate and former Add. Solicitor General of India SD Sanjay) under Section 500 of the IPC (Defamation) over Gandi's alleged remark “why all thieves share the Modi surname”.

It is Modi's case that Gandhi made the derogatory remark targetting people having the 'Modi' surname. Gandhi obtained bail in the case in the year 2019.

In related news, on Thursday, the Surat Sessions Court dismissed Rahul Gandhi's application seeking a stay on his conviction in the defamation case over his alleged remark. Dismissing Gandhi's application, the Court said that being a Member of Parliament and President of the second largest political party, Gandhi should have been more careful with his words, which would have had a large impact on the mind of the people.

Surat Sessions Court Judge Robin Mogera also observed that any defamatory words coming from the mouth of Gandhi are sufficient enough to cause mental agony to the aggrieved person and in this case, comparing persons having the surname 'Modi' with thieves, would definitely have caused mental agony and harm the reputation of the complainant, BJP MLA Purnesh Modi.