On March 23, the Chief Judicial Magistrate HH Varma of a Surat court sentenced Rahul Gandhi, De facto leader of the Indian National Congress, to two years in jail in a defamation case dating back to 2019. The case was related to Gandhi’s comments about the “Modi surname” during a rally in Kolar, Karnataka, where he allegedly said, “how come all the thieves have Modi as the common surname?” Despite the conviction, Gandhi was granted bail and his sentence was suspended for 30 days, allowing him to appeal in a higher court. This incident has caused a frenzy within the opposition party, indicating significant churning within Indian politics. This article will delve into the legal aspects of this incident and explore past instances to analyse why this incident serves as a stark warning to the politics of “shoot and scoot,” a term used to describe the practice of making sensational but unsubstantiated allegations against political opponents.
What Is The Case?
During a political rally in Kolar, Karnataka in 2019, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi allegedly made a statement about people with the surname Modi being thieves. BJP MLA and former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi filed a complaint against Gandhi under sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which deal with criminal defamation. Chief Judicial Magistrate HH Varma held Gandhi guilty, but granted him bail and suspended the sentence for 30 days to allow him to appeal in a higher court. In India, defamation can both be a civil wrong and a criminal offence, depending on the objective they seek to achieve. A civil wrong sees a wrong being redressed with monetary compensation, while a criminal law seeks to punish a wrongdoer and send a message to others not to commit such acts, with a jail term. In a criminal case, defamation must be established beyond reasonable doubt but in a civil defamation suit, damages can be awarded based on probabilities. Section 499 of the IPC defines what amounts to criminal defamation and subsequent provisions define its punishment. Section 499 elaborates on how defamation could be through words – spoken or intended to be read, through signs, and through visible representations. These can either be published or spoken about a person with the intention of damaging the reputation of that person, or with the knowledge or reason to believe that the imputation will harm his reputation.
The final arguments were heard by the court last week, and Gandhi’s lawyer argued that the proceedings were flawed from the beginning because the procedure laid down under section 202 of the CrPC was not followed. The Gujarat High Court had stayed the proceedings in March 2022, but the case resumed after Modi withdrew his petition following the emergence of sufficient evidence. Gandhi’s lawyer also argued that Prime Minister Narendra Modi, rather than Purnesh Modi, should have been the complainant in the case because he was the main target of Gandhi’s speech. But as a representative of the entire ‘Modi’ community the complainant pressed with his legal action. It is worth noting that the Modi surname is relatively common in Gujarat, particularly in the Ghanchi community, which is primarily involved in the manufacture and sale of vegetable oil. It is also found among other communities in Gujarat, such as the Lohana, Kshatriya, and Jain communities. Thus, not all individuals with the Modi surname are related to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and it seems that the lower court likely found merit in these arguments to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. But it is also a stated fact that the de-facto opposition leader is granted the due liberty to appeal the said decision and to challenge the same to obtain suitable relief in the higher court. Even though Rahul suffered an immediate disqualification, the merits of the case are still left open.
Lilly Thomas Verdict
The Lily Thomas case was a significant decision by the Supreme Court of India in 2013, which dealt with the issue of disqualification of convicted politicians from holding public office or contesting elections. The Court held that a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a term of two years or more would be disqualified from holding public office or contesting elections, even if the conviction was under appeal. The Supreme Court based its decision on the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which lays down the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of Parliament and State Legislatures. Section 8 of the Act provides that a person convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more shall be disqualified for a period of six years from the date of his release from prison. However, the Act also provides that the disqualification shall not apply if the conviction is stayed by a superior court. In the Lily Thomas case, the Supreme Court interpreted the provision in a manner that ensured that a convicted person would be disqualified even if the conviction was under appeal. The Court held that the provision of the Act was intended to ensure that persons with criminal backgrounds do not enter the political arena and influence the decision-making process. The Court also observed that the disqualification was not a punishment, but a restriction on the right to contest elections.
The Lily Thomas verdict has been hailed as a landmark decision in the fight against corruption in Indian politics. According to a report by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a non-governmental organization that tracks the criminal records of politicians, as of 2019, 43% of the members of the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) had criminal cases pending against them, while 29% had serious criminal cases such as murder, kidnapping and rape. The Lily Thomas verdict has resulted in a significant number of politicians being disqualified from holding public office or contesting elections. For instance, in 2014, the Supreme Court disqualified Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Lalu Prasad Yadav from contesting elections for six years after he was convicted in a corruption case. Similarly, in 2017, the Supreme Court disqualified All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) leader VK Sasikala from contesting elections for four years after she was convicted in a disproportionate assets case. The Lily Thomas verdict has played a crucial role in cleaning up Indian politics by disqualifying convicted politicians from holding public office or contesting elections. The decision has helped to maintain the integrity and purity of elections and has ensured that persons with criminal backgrounds do not enter the political arena and influence the decision-making process. And it is under these circumstances Rahul Gandhi was disqualified.
Instances from the past
The Representation of the People Act has been instrumental in ensuring accountable politics in India by disqualifying Members of Parliament (MPs) for various reasons. The disqualification of MPs with criminal backgrounds or those who violate the law has helped to maintain the integrity and purity of elections, ensuring that only people with a clean track record are allowed to enter the political arena. Here are some past examples of disqualification of MPs under the Representation of the People Act; In 2006, actor-turned-politician Jaya Bachchan was disqualified from the Rajya Sabha (Upper House of Parliament) after it was found that she held an office of profit as the chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Corporation. Similarly, in 2011, YSR Congress Party leader Jagan Mohan Reddy was disqualified from the Lok Sabha (Lower House of Parliament) after he was charged with corruption and disproportionate assets. In 2007, Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader Shibu Soren was disqualified from the Lok Sabha under the Representation of the People Act, after he was convicted in a murder case. Similarly, in 2013, Rashtriya Janata Dal leader Lalu Prasad Yadav was disqualified from the Lok Sabha and barred from contesting elections for six years under the Representation of the People Act, after he was convicted in a corruption case. And more recently, in January, Mohammad Faizal, the MP from Lakshadweep, was disqualified by the Lok Sabha Secretariat after being convicted by a sessions court for attempted murder. However, the Kerala High Court later suspended the conviction, and the Election Commission decided to withhold the by-election to the Lok Sabha seat scheduled for February 27. Similarly, in October 2022, Azam Khan, an MLA from Rampur, was convicted in a 2019 hate speech case and sentenced to three years in prison by a Rampur MP-MLA court. The next day, the UP-Assembly Secretariat announced Khan’s disqualification from the House. These instances of disqualification of MPs have served as examples of accountable politics in India.
Warning To Shoot And Scoot Politics
The recent observation by the court in the defamation case is a stark warning to the practice of ‘shoot and scoot’ politics which has zero accountability. The present decision by the court and its consequences will send shivers down the spine of any politicians who want to indulge themselves in unaccountable politics. Even though the merits of Rahul’s case are still left open for the higher judiciary to decide, the lesson from the proceedings has been carved into stone. Thus, ultimately it gives one lesson to our politicians, which is, ‘Do not speak what you cannot substantiate.’
(This article was originally published in The Pulse and has been republished here with permission.)
Click here to subscribe to The Commune on Telegram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.