The Supreme Court has temporarily stayed trial proceedings in the criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his alleged remarks referring to Prime Minister Narendra Modi as “Choro Ke Sardar” and “Commander-in-Thief”, Live Law reported.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh issued notice, returnable in four weeks, on Gandhi’s plea challenging the Bombay High Court’s September 8 order refusing to quash the criminal defamation case.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared on behalf of Gandhi.
Before the Bombay High Court, Gandhi had challenged the summons issued by the Magistrate’s court, arguing that the complaint filed by a BJP worker was not maintainable. He contended that he had not named the party and had not targeted any “identifiable or definite class”. In the absence of such a specific target, he argued, there was no clearly aggrieved person or group with the locus standi to pursue the case.
The High Court rejected Gandhi’s contention, ruling that the BJP, being a registered national political party, constituted 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 High Court relied on a judgment in Shashi Tharoor’s case, in which the Delhi High Court held that a political party, by virtue of its registration, constitutes an identifiable and determinable body.
The High Court had reserved its order in February this year after hearing submissions from the complainant, Gandhi and the Maharashtra government on the Congress leader’s plea.
The complaint was filed by Mahesh Shrishrimal, a Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) worker, before a Metropolitan Magistrate, who subsequently issued summons to Gandhi. The complainant alleged that the remarks targeted the Prime Minister and, by extension, the ruling party and its members, thereby damaging their reputation.
According to the complainant, referring to Modi as “Choro Ke Sardar” effectively portrayed all BJP members as “thieves”, entitling party workers 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 for Gandhi, submitted that the Congress leader had neither named the BJP nor referred to any political party in his tweet, and had not targeted any “identifiable or definite class”.
Pasbola argued that, in the absence of a clearly aggrieved person or group, the complainant lacked the locus standi to pursue the case. He further contended that merely interpreting the remarks as referring to party workers was insufficient to sustain a criminal defamation action.
Opposing the plea, Maharashtra Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe argued that the Court must determine whether the essential elements of defamation were established and whether the remarks targeted a definite and identifiable group. He submitted that the law allows “some aggrieved person” to initiate prosecution if such a group can be identified, and contended that the proceedings should not be quashed at the threshold.
