A magistrate court in Mumbai issued summons to the Congress leader in October 2019 after a BJP worker had said the former's comments against Narendra Modi were defamatory.
File image of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. Photo: PTI
New Delhi: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Wednesday, November 17, moved the Bombay high court seeking the quashing of a defamation case filed against him by a BJP worker for using the phrase Chowkidaar chor hai‘ (“the watchman is the thief”) in reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the run-up to the 2019 elections.
Referring to the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression and competing political interests, Gandhi, in his petition, said, ” In a democracy, political debate is the lifeblood of the country and such debate should be encouraged rather than curtailed by frivolous complaints filed in the name of defamation.”
A magistrate court in Mumbai had issued summons to Gandhi in October 2019 after one Mahesh Shrishrimal, a member of the BJP moved the court referring to Gandhi’s usage of “Chowkidaar chor hai”, “Choron ka sardar” and “commander-in-thief” as not only defamatory to the prime minister but also to all members of the BJP and sought for his prosecution under Section 500 (punishment for defamation) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Congress leader has not appeared in person so far before the magistrate.
The petition to quash the defamation case was filed before Justice S.K. Shinde of the Bombay high court by Rahul Gandhi’s lawyer Kushal Mor on Wednesday, stating that the said remark was made against the prime minister and the complainant is not the aggrieved party.
Also read: The Real Danger of Narendra Modi’s ‘Main Bhi Chowkidar’ Campaign
While defending his right to indulge in political criticism, Gandhi’s petition argued, “In a democratic set- up, competing interests of political parties are the order of the day and the imputations made by one political party against the other with a zealous color of the political debate need not fall within the rigors as defined in Section 499/500 IPC. Moreover, in a political environment, the members of the political parties get an opportunity to rebut the imputations by means of a political speech and the resort to criminal action in defamation case is far-fetched and discourages political debate.”
The petition also said that when an issue under consideration is in the political domain prompting a raging debate, with opinions on both sides (in this case, BJP and Congress), it cannot invite a defamation case.
Questioning the locus standi of the complainant, the petition clarified that the remarks were directed at the prime minister, who is not the president of the party to which the complainant belongs, hence the question of party members’ reputation getting undermined did not arise.
The petition clarified that a defamation case can only be filed by an aggrieved person. However, it also said that even if a sub-section of the relevant legal provision allows such a case to be filed by an “association or collection of persons”, it can be applied only if such collection of persons is a “definite and determinable body”.
“In the present case, the Bharatiya Janta Party being a very large political party is an unascertainable body of persons, and therefore, no member of that body could say that he was individually defamed on account of the imputations,” the petition said, according to LiveLaw.
Therefore, the petition argued that “the individual interest of the Complainant under the guise of reputation cannot have supremacy over the larger public interest, for the dominant interest in democracy is the collective interest and not the perspective individualism”.
Calling it a “classic example of frivolous and vexatious litigation”, Gandhi said that he was being targeted by his political adversaries to further their political agenda.
On the summons issued by the magistrate, Gandhi said the order was passed “mechanically” without “minimum reasoning as would be required for issuing process against any person”.
The Bombay high court will take up the matter for hearing on November 22.
(With PTI inputs)
Social media is bold.
Social media is young.
Social media raises questions.
Social media is not satisfied with an answer.
Social media looks at the big picture.
Social media is interested in every detail.
social media is curious.
Social media is free.
Social media is irreplaceable.
But never irrelevant.
Social media is you.
(With input from news agency language)
If you like this story, share it with a friend!
We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure
0 Comments