All decrees of courts cannot be assumed to be objective, fair, reasonable and just, simply because they are clothed by judicial officers. Of late, judicial officers’ affirmation to administer justice, discharge duties impartially and tenaciously hold to the law and Constitution is getting blurred. The legalised conviction of Rahul Gandhi under Section 499 and 500 of I P C on the charge of criminal defamation for utterances in a campaign speech would eventually fall in the realm of legalised injustice. General eyes and public minds applying common sense would definitely perceive an immoral political game in the criminal defamation suit filed by a BJP MLA Purnesh Modi. A common man will be suspicious about the motives of the petitioner alleging defamation and continue to doubt whether the person is knocking the doors of the judiciary with clean hands.
Probably, judicial minds wear the cap of legal sense and the legal scrutiny could keep the widely seeming common sense at arm’s length.
If you enjoyed reading this article, you can help support our journalism by adding OHeraldo as a preferred source.
It would be relevant to recall here that the provisions of the anti-defection law could not disqualify members of legislatures despite widespread defections, splits and mergers in Goa, Karnataka, Telangana, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, West Bengal and in a few other states. The wholesale trade of MLAs has shaken the public confidence in elections and made a mockery of parliamentary democracy. It is a matter of remorse to observe the press and media taking pride in proclaiming the political architects of splits and defections as the modern ‘Chanakya or Kautilya’. The media chorus seems to categorise defections as political pragmatism and defectors as political heroes. The conduct of the incumbent Speaker as the quasi-judicial authority under the Tenth Schedule has brought disgrace to the august and exalted office. The Supreme Court is found dithering on a final and conclusive order on the defectors. What comes out of the blue is the disqualification of Rahul Gandhi, MP from the Waynad Lok Sabha constituency for being convicted for criminal defamation involving the sentence of two years in prison. The 52-year-old Rahul Gandhi who rolled the dice of the Bharat Jodo Yatra, walking around 4000 km for 150 days from Kanyakumari to Jammu & Kashmir to protest against the politics of ‘fear, bigotry and prejudice’ is ejected out from the Parliament. The surgical appliances pressed in this operation are doubtful and disputable, and could be also wicked.
It is not that there are no past instances of disqualification of MLAs/MPs on ground of conviction involving a jail sentence of two years. However, there is no single instance of disqualification resulting from conviction on the ground of criminal defamation. All the instances are due to convictions involving scams, rip-offs, disproportionate assets, murder, fraud, riots and rape. The disqualification of Rahul Gandhi as MP is the one and only instance so far in the annals of parliamentary democracy which is resulting after conviction on the ground of criminal defamation.
The criminal defamation rests on a statement in a political speech wherein after naming Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi and Prime Minister Modi, Rahul Gandhi quipped “How all the thieves have same name –Modi”. It is for this one statement that a BJP MLA, Purnesh Modi lodged the complaint against Rahul Gandhi for having defamed “Modi community”. Nirav Modi is a known businessman and fugitive economic offender charged by Government of India for criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust. It is public knowledge that Lalit Modi, the former cricket administrator is a financial fraud fugitive.
A common man will not find anything abnormal in a political speech. These speeches are to be left for the judgement of the public. The trial court at Surat convicted the accused Rahul Gandhi on a complaint by a person with a ‘Modi’ surname. The accused is not a resident within the geographical jurisdiction of the trial court. In these circumstances, there is a heavy burden to scrutinise the case from all aspects. None of the specific individuals claim defamation. The speech was in no way directed against the complainant. It is pertinent to note that the complainant moved the High Court (March 2022) seeking a stay on trial proceedings when Chief Judicial Magistrate A N Dave insisted that the arguments commence immediately. Such instance of the complainant being in no hurry is unheard of in matters of criminal defamation. But the moment H H Varma took charge as CJM, the complainant approached the High Court (February 2023) for vacation of stay on trial. A month later (March 2023), the accused Rahul Gandhi stood convicted!
The Gujarat High Court has refused to interfere with the order holding the ground that ‘Modi’ is a surname and also a clearly identifiable class. Further, the High court holds that the utterances of Rahul Gandhi damage the reputation of the identifiable class and they cannot be taken as individual-centric. The observation of the High Court that the statement of Rahul Gandhi is heinous, smacking of grave moral turpitude is an over-exaggerated judicial response. One fails to understand the motivation of the High Court in putting on record 10 criminal cases filed against Rahul Gandhi including the one filed by the grandson of Vir Sawarkar in April, 2023, almost after the order of the Surat trial court. The High Court has failed to grasp the total picture of all these cases being filed either by office-bearers of BJP or frontal organisations. The attempt of the High Court to take a vicarious dig at Rahul Gandhi by stating that the need of the hour is to have purity in politics and that representatives of the people should be men of clear antecedent is vicious and not expected from a tall legal authority.
This is not an attempt to attribute motivates to the judge. However, the turn of events raises questions on men in robes occupying honourable positions. The order of the Surat court could be a cruel joke on Section 499 & 500 I P C and has the potential to defame the judiciary.
(The writer is an educationist and political commentator)
