Rahul Gandhi gets Supreme Court relief in defamation case over remarks against PM Narendra Modi

The Supreme Court has stayed trial court proceedings in a 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”.

A bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh issued notice on Gandhi’s plea challenging the Bombay High Court’s September 8 order that refused to quash the case. The notice is returnable in four weeks.

“Issue notice returnable in 4 weeks. In the meantime, further proceedings before the trial court shall remain stayed,” the Supreme Court ordered.

Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Gandhi before the top court. The dispute centres on whether the alleged remarks could constitute criminal defamation against members of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), even though Gandhi had not expressly named the party or its workers.

BJP worker’s complaint led to criminal proceedings

The complaint was filed by Mahesh Shrishrimal, a BJP worker, before a metropolitan magistrate, who subsequently issued summons to Gandhi.

Shrishrimal alleged that Gandhi’s remarks were directed at Modi and, by extension, the BJP and its members, damaging their reputation. According to the complainant, describing the Prime Minister as “Choro Ke Sardar” effectively portrayed BJP members as thieves and gave party workers grounds to pursue a criminal defamation case.

Gandhi challenged the magistrate’s summons before the Bombay High Court, arguing that the complaint was not legally maintainable because he had neither named the BJP nor targeted an identifiable group of people in his remarks.

Gandhi argued complaint was not maintainable

Appearing for Gandhi before the Bombay High Court, senior advocate Sudeep Pasbola argued that the Congress leader had not named the BJP or its members in the remarks. He submitted that the complaint could not be sustained without an identifiable or definite group being targeted and a person or group having the legal standing to initiate defamation proceedings.

Pasbola also argued that interpreting the remarks as an allegation against BJP workers was insufficient to justify a criminal prosecution.

Opposing Gandhi’s plea, Maharashtra Advocate General Dr Milind Sathe argued that the court needed to examine whether the essential ingredients of criminal defamation were made out. He submitted that the law allowed a complaint to be filed by an aggrieved person if the alleged remarks concerned a definite and identifiable group.

The High Court had reserved its decision in February after hearing submissions from Gandhi, the complainant and the Maharashtra government.

Bombay High Court relied on earlier judgment

On September 8, the Bombay High Court refused to quash the case, finding no illegality in the magistrate’s decision to issue summons.

The court observed that the complainant had claimed to be an active BJP member for two decades. It said that, at the preliminary stage, the alleged description of Modi, who is also a BJP member, as “Commander-in-Thief” could not be treated as necessarily restricted to the party’s senior leadership.

The High Court held that whether the alleged imputation extended to party members and what impact it had on their reputation would have to be assessed during the trial.

In reaching its conclusion, the court relied on a judgment in a separate case involving Congress leader Shashi Tharoor. In that matter, the Delhi High Court had held that a registered political party could constitute an identifiable and determinable body for the purposes of defamation law.

The central legal question is whether Gandhi’s alleged remarks could amount to criminal defamation of an identifiable group, despite the absence of an explicit reference to the BJP or its members.

With the Supreme Court now staying the trial court proceedings, the matter will be considered further after the respondents respond to the notice issued by the bench.