Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was this week disqualified from the Lok Sabha following his conviction in a 2019 defamation case by a Surat court. The conviction pertained to his remarks about the “Modi” surname.
However, this is not the only defamation case against the former Member of Parliament. In 2014, a Bhiwandi court summoned him in another defamation case under Sections 499 and 500 IPC, based on a complaint filed by RSS activist Rajesh Kunte Mishra.
What happened before the Bhiwandi court?
In 2014, a criminal complaint was filed against Rahul Gandhi for allegedly blaming the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. The complaint filed by an RSS activist alleged that Gandhi, during a public rally organised by the Indian National Congress in Bhiwandi, Maharashtra, ahead of the 2014 Lok Sabha polls, had stated, “This is their style. Gandhiji was killed by them; persons from the RSS. Shot Gandhiji. And today their people talk of Gandhiji.”
On the basis of allegations in Mishra’s complaint that Gandhi had made the statements intending to harm the reputation of the RSS and its members, a criminal case was registered against him by the 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi, under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, which define defamation and its consequent punishment.
After this, Gandhi approached the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the summons and the proceedings initiated against him before the Bhiwandi court.
What did the Bombay HC say?
On March 10, 2015, single-judge bench of ML Tahaliyani of the Bombay High Court in “Rahul Gandhi vs. Rajesh Mahadev Kunte” refused to quash either the summons or the proceedings against Gandhi in the defamation case at the Bhiwandi court.
“In my opinion, unless it is established that the statement was made in good faith, offence defined under section 499 and punishable under section 500 of the IPC would be made out,” the Bombay High Court held.
The Court also reasoned that it did not deem this case as “exceptional” or fit for exercising its quashing powers under section 482 of CrPC. “Powers of section 482 of CrPC are required to be exercised sparingly,” the Court added.
The lack of relief rendered by the Bombay High Court caused Gandhi to seek respite from the Apex Court.
What did the Apex Court rule?
On September 1, 2016, a two-judge bench of Justices Dipak Mishra and Rohinton Fali Nariman of the Apex Court allowed Rahul Gandhi to withdraw his plea seeking quashing of defamation proceedings against him before the Bhiwandi court. The decision to withdraw Gandhi’s plea was taken by Senior advocate Kapil Sibal following the Court’s refusal to interfere with the Bombay High Court order.
This decision came on a fresh petition titled “Rahul Gandhi vs. Rajesh Mahadev Kunte & Another” filed before the Supreme Court on May 14, 2016. What distinguished this plea from the previous ones was that Gandhi had challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC this time. However, the Apex Court dismissed this challenge, relying upon its 2016 ruling in the case of “Subramanian Swamy vs. Union of India.”
“Needless to say, if any observation has been made by the High Court while disposing of the writ petition, the same shall be confined to be stated for the purpose of disposal of the writ petition and the trial Magistrate shall proceed in accordance with law without being influenced by any of the observations made by the High Court,” the Court held.
What was the Subramaniam Swamy case?
In its 2016 ruling in “Subramanian Swamy vs Union of India”, a bench of Justices Dipak Mishra and Prafulla C Pant of the Apex Court upheld the constitutionality of criminal defamation under Sections 499 and 500 IPC. The Court said that the fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression must be balanced against the right to reputation. The Court also stated that the offence of criminal defamation does not violate freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution and is a proportionate or reasonable restriction as per the law laid down in Article 19 (2).
The Court also said that while the right to free speech and dissent exist in a democracy, it cannot mean that a citizen can defame another as protection of reputation is a fundamental right as well as a human right.
“In view of the aforesaid analysis, we uphold the constitutional validity of Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,” the Court said in its judgment dated May 13, 2016.
