Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Jharkhand High Court recently dismissed a plea moved by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi for quashing a defamation case against him. The case has been filed by an advocate belonging to the illustrious Modi family of Ranchi over Gandhi's alleged derogatory remarks against the entire 'Modi' community. 

The complainant, namely Advocate Pradip Modi filed a complaint in the year 2019 after Gandhi's speeches on March 2, 2019 in the Ranchi rally and on April 13, 2019 in a public rally held in the town of Kolar in Karnataka.

In the Ranchi rally, Gandhi reportedly commented that "Afterall, Why are all Modi thieves?" (English translation), and in the Karnataka rally he reportedly again said, "I have a question? Why do all thieves have Modi in their names, whether it is Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, or Narendra Modi? I don’t know how many more such Modi will come out.”

The complainant alleged that Gandhi's remarks were against all persons having Modi surname/title and were derogatory and defamatory. "....and has lowered the reputation of Modi clan in public eyes and has caused immense hurt and anguish to person having Modi surname," he stated in the complaint. 

Therefore, contending that Gandhi's speech making sweeping remarks that all Modis are thieves was defamation as defined under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, the complainant said that Gandhi was liable to be punished by imposing maximum imprisonment and exemplary fine.

In the matter, cognizance under section 500 of the I.P.C has been taken and the case is pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

In Gandhi's instant plea before the High Court, his counsel took the Court to the various paragraphs of the complaint and submitted 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.

He argued that in the instant case, ingredients of section 499 read with Explanation-2 of the I.P.C. were not made out so far Gandhi was concerned. He also placed a plethora of judgments in support of his arguments. 

"The complainant did not have any specific legal injury as Gandhi’s remarks were not directed at any individual or a readily identifiable group of people, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable", he asserted. 

On the other hand, the counsel on the complainant's behalf opposed the arguments and said that the statement with regard to the Modi community was made at Ranchi and since the complainant was a resident of Ranchi, therefore, he was an aggrieved person in the case. 

He further submitted that these were all facts, as to whether the complainant could file the case, which could be looked into by the trial court in the trial, and the high court may not roam into that to come to the conclusion that no case against Gandhi was made out.

The bench of Justice Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi said that it was an admitted fact that the statement was made at Ranchi. However, 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, Court added. 

Referring to the decision in “Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi & Ors." wherein the Apex Court held that the allegation was against the Marwari community, and all Marwari communities were affected, the high court held that the speech was made at Ranchi, thus, the Modi community of Ranchi was also affected.

"The Court has perused the cognizance order dated 07.06.2019 and finds that the learned court has applied his judicial mind and after disclosing the prima facie materials took the cognizance," Court held. 

In view of the above facts, reasons and the analysis, Court concluded that all the contentions were required to be proved in the trial and the high court was not required to roam to into and come to the conclusion at the instant stage as to whether Explanation-2 of section 499 I.P.C had been proved or not.

Accordingly, Court dismissed Gandhi's plea. 

Case Title: Rahul Gandhi v. The State of Jharkhand and Another