Click the Play button to listen to article

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday (September 8) refused to quash the criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his alleged remarks describing Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “Choro Ke Sardar” and “Commander-in-Thief”.

Gandhi had challenged Magistrate court summons in the case and argued that the complaint filed by a BJP worker was not maintainabile. He claiming that he had not named the party and that no “identifiable or definite class” had been targeted, in the absence of which there is no clearly aggrieved person or group having locus standi to prosecute the case.

Single-judge Justice Nitin Borkar rejected Gandhi's argument and held that being a registered national political party, the BJP is definitely an identifiable body.

"Case of the complainant that he has been active member of BJP for two decades. On a prima facie reading of the statment describing the PM, who is member of BJP as a commander in theif therefore at this stage, it cannot be said that the impugned comment is limited only to the senior leadership of the party. Whether the imputation was in substance and what impact it will have on members of the party will have to be considered at the stage of trial. Therefore, this court finds no illegality in the order passed by the Ld Magistrate," the judge said.

The Court relied on the judgment in Shashi Tharoor's case wherein Delhi High Court held that a political party by virtue of its registration is an identifiable and determinative body.

The judge had reserved the matter for orders in February this year, after hearing the complainant, Gandhi and also the Maharashtra Government over the plea filed by the Congress leader. 

Notably, complaint was instituted by one Mahesh Shrishrimal, a worker of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), before a Metropolitan Magistrate, who had issued summons to Gandhi. The complainant contended that the remarks were aimed at the Prime Minister and, by extension, the ruling party and its members, thereby lowering their reputation. According to him, referring to Modi as “Choro Ke Sardar” effectively portrayed all BJP members as “thieves”, giving party workers the right to initiate defamation proceedings.

Challenging the summons and the continuation of the proceedings, Gandhi approached the High Court arguing that the complaint was not maintainable. Senior Advocate Sudeep Pasbola, appearing on his behalf, submitted that Gandhi had not named the BJP or any political party in the tweet and that no “identifiable or definite class” had been targeted. In the absence of a clearly aggrieved person or group, Pasbola argued, the complainant lacked locus standi to prosecute the case. He emphasized that merely drawing an interpretation that the statement applied to party workers cannot sustain a criminal defamation action.

Opposing the plea, Maharashtra Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe argued that the Court must examine whether the ingredients of defamation are made out and whether the remarks concerned a definite and identifiable group. He submitted that the law permits “some aggrieved person” to initiate prosecution if such a group can be established, and therefore the proceedings should not be quashed at the threshold.

The principal issue before the Court, thus, was whether the impugned remarks amount to criminal defamation and whether a political party worker can maintain a complaint when neither the party nor its members are expressly named.

Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs State of Maharashtra (Writ Petition 4391 of 2021)

Tags: