New Delhi: The Congress Thursday laid out at least five grounds on which it could challenge the conviction of its leader Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case for his remarks on the ‘Modi’ surname in a 2019 election speech in Karnataka.
Speaking to the press at the Congress headquarters hours after a court in Surat found Gandhi guilty of criminal defamation and sentenced him to two years of jail, Congress Member of Parliament and senior lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi called the judgement “full of errors” and “legally unsustainable”.
This, he said, will stop neither Gandhi nor the Congress party from “open, fearless speech”.
Singhvi said that while the 170-page judgement, which was in Gujarati, was being studied, there are at least five grounds that will form a part of Gandhi’s appeal against the verdict.
Here are the five grounds on which the Congress plans to challenge the verdict.
‘Personally defamed’
The first ground, Singhvi said, was that in case of criminal defamation, the person claiming to be “defamed” by a statement must demonstrate how it personally damaged their reputation. In this case, he said, this condition is not fulfilled.
“At the heart of the law of criminal defamations is that persons who are complainants should be those who must be able to demonstrate how they’re are personally defamed, how he or she is prejudiced,” he said. “The admitted position (in this case) is that no one who is the subject matter of the statement which is found to be offending has filed a criminal contempt case. The first condition, the precedent of the law of defamation appears to have been blatantly not fulfilled and has yet led to a conviction,” Singhvi said.
‘Malicious intent’
According to Singhvi, “malicious intent” is an essential element in criminal defamation. In Gandhi’s 2019 speech, this cannot be proved, he said.
“The very content of the speech (against price rise and unemployment) shows that there could not have been any malicious intent,” he said. “A leader of a political party of India with a pan-India footprint was speaking about unemployment, price rise in the course of which there is a sentence found to be offending. The focus and intent of the speech weren’t these three persons. The thrust and substance at the core of the speech was not these three persons.”
He was referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and embattled diamond magnate Nirav Modi and former Indian Premier League commissioner Lalit Modi, all of whom found mention in Rahul Gandhi’s speech.
‘Unusual development’
The third ground on which the verdict could be challenged is an “unusual” development in the case since it had been filed, Singhvi said.
“It appears that after this complaint was filed and the magistrate — one Mr. X — took up the matter, a large chunk of the time of the last 2-3 years was taken up by the complainant himself by going to the higher court and seeking a stay on the proceedings. It is rather unusual for a complainant who should be interested in (the) expedition,” he said.
He claimed that the complainant “suddenly withdrew the complaint (before the higher court), apparently after the magistrate before whom the case had initially come had ceased to hold office and a different magistrate had taken his place”.
“The second person — Y — appears to have passed the order of this conviction”, he said.
Jurisdiction, ‘short arguments’
According to Singhvi, the fourth on which the verdict could be challenged is jurisdiction — how could a court in Gujarat try a person for comments made in Karnataka?
“As we all know, this was an event in the course of a political speech in the state of Karnataka. There is an established provision which has been expounded and elaborated by several SC judgements called Section 202, precisely created to prevent without jurisdiction, mischievous prosecution complaints in areas where no cause of action has a reason,” he said.
Singhvi was referring to Section 202 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), a legal provision that deals with what to do in cases where a person accused of a crime is living beyond the jurisdiction of a magistrate. The provision is aimed at preventing harassment.
Gandhi’s speech, made in Kolar in Karnataka, had “no connection with Surat, although a specious plea can always be made that today in the internet world or global village, the same statement goes everywhere”, Singhvi said.
“That certainly does not mean that rule 202 can be nullified by filing complaints in Kashmir and Sikkim for a speech in Kolar,” he said. “The object of 202 is that the magistrate, before initiating process, must first examine whether it can reasonably be said that his jurisdiction has been rightly invoked. And he can simply reject the complaint, not on the basis of merit, but he can say ‘Please go to the appropriate place’.”
Singhvi also said that the sentence against Gandhi was pronounced after “very short arguments”.
“Somewhat near the maximum sentence seems to have been imposed after a very short argument,” he said at the press briefing. “Sentencing is a separate, distinct procedure which requires separate hearings and arguments, irrespective of conviction.”
Will Rahul Gandhi face disqualification?
When asked if the sentence could lead to Gandhi’s Lok Sabha membership being revoked, Singhvi said it would be unfair to do so without giving him at least two-three weeks to appeal.
Gandhi is an MP from Wayanad, Kerala.
Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, states that a person who is sentenced for not less than 2 years will stand disqualified from Parliament for the period of the sentence and for a further period of six years after release.
“But,” said Singhvi, “given the fact that Rahul Gandhi’s name has come up, we are sure that principles of fairness will not be followed by the government”.
He clarified that the 30 days of suspension of Rahul’s sentence, as has been ordered by the Surat court, “doesn’t have anything to do with disqualification.”
“The disqualification issue is based on a stay in conviction”, he said.
(Edited by Uttara Ramaswamy)
Also Read: Who are Modis? Community ‘defamed’ by Rahul has nomadic origins, came to Gujarat 600 years ago