look news india
Leader of Opposition (LoP) in Lok Sabha and senior Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has received a major legal relief from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has currently put an interim stay on the trial court proceedings and the ongoing trial in a criminal defamation case registered in Maharashtra over his alleged controversial remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
A two-member bench of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh, hearing the case, issued a formal notice to the Maharashtra government and the original complainant and directed them to file their detailed reply within four weeks. The bench made it clear in its order that until the next hearing on this petition is held in the Supreme Court, there will be no further legal proceedings or testimony in the lower court.
This defamation dispute is from the year 2018-19, when political rhetoric regarding the Rafale fighter aircraft deal was at its peak in the country.
-
Speeches and allegations: Complainant M.H. Srishrimal had filed a complaint in the Magistrate Court located in Girgaon, Maharashtra. The complaint alleged that Rahul Gandhi had allegedly used “commander-in-thief” and other derogatory words against Prime Minister Narendra Modi while delivering a speech at a public rally held in Dungarpur, Rajasthan in September 2018.
-
Complainant’s argument: The complainant had claimed that this statement of Rahul Gandhi has defamed not only the Prime Minister but all the workers and citizens of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), due to which his social reputation has been hurt.
-
Issuance of summons: Taking cognizance of this complaint, the local magistrate court had issued summons against Rahul Gandhi under sections of criminal defamation.
Rahul Gandhi had approached the Bombay High Court to get the summons issued by the lower court canceled. However, a single bench of the Bombay High Court rejected Rahul Gandhi’s plea and refused to quash the summons issued against him. The High Court had held that the truth and context of the allegations made by the complainant can be determined only during the trial.
Challenging this order of Bombay High Court, Rahul Gandhi’s legal team filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court through senior advocate and Congress leader Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
During the hearing in the Supreme Court, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, underlined several important legal aspects:
-
Legal principle of ‘Aggrieved Person’: A defamation complaint under Section 199 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) can be filed only by the person against whom the alleged remarks are directly made (i.e. the aggrieved person).
-
No right of complaint by third parties: The defense argued that if a political statement is made in the form of criticism of a leader or government policies, then a third party or party worker does not have the legal right (locus standi) to file a defamation suit.
-
Citing prior decisions of the court: Singhvi cited several earlier precedents of the Supreme Court, in which the apex court has made it clear that defamation petitions filed by party workers on the basis of general political statements cannot be accepted.
After hearing these preliminary arguments, the Supreme Court passed an order to stay the trial court proceedings.
This interim order of the Supreme Court has several major legal and political implications:
-
Relief from summons and personal appearance: After this stay order, Rahul Gandhi has got complete relief from appearing personally in the trial court of Maharashtra or facing the daily hearing of the case.
-
Hearing again after four weeks: The Supreme Court has asked the defendants to reply within 4 weeks. After receiving the reply to the notice, the Supreme Court will take a final decision on whether the entire defamation case going on in the trial court should be completely quashed by rejecting the order of the Bombay High Court.
This stand of the apex court may set an important legal precedent regarding the scope of ‘aggrieved party’ in defamation cases filed against opposition leaders.