congress leader Rahul Gandhi has got bail Her appeal is pending against a bizarre conviction for defamation, recorded by a judicial magistrate’s court, from a sessions court in Surat. In an unusual decision, the The trial court sentenced him to the maximum allowable jail term of two years., claiming that a Member of Parliament due to his status deserves the highest punishment. As a result of the two-year jail term, he is now disqualified to continue as an MLA and The Lok Sabha Secretariat has issued a notification of his disqualification., He may only be able to regain his seat if the appellate court stays his conviction, or the appeal itself is allowed and the verdict is quashed. The Sessions Court has posted the application for hearing on April 13, and has asked the complainant, Purnesh Modi, Bharatiya Janata Party’s Member of Legislative Assembly, to file his reply to the petition by April 10. Mr. Gandhi’s appeal focuses on both the legal. The aspects of defamation and the factual aspects behind his remarks which refer to the surname ‘Modi’ include a list of people whom he accuses of doing business to the detriment of national interest. The trial court’s finding that Mr. Gandhi sought to gain political mileage by defaming 13 crore people bearing the surname ‘Modi’ has to be tested against the legal position that only a definite and definite set of people are liable for defamation Could.
relevant provisions on defamation, Indian Penal Code Section 499, contains an explanation that a ‘collection of persons’ may also be aggrieved by a defamatory remark. However, whether an amorphous group of people linked only by a single surname can be such a ‘collection of persons’ is a relevant question. This becomes especially important when the comment is perceived as stigmatizing certain backward communities. While the finding that the speech was defamatory was in itself harmful, the quantum of the sentence provided somewhat different grounds for appeal. Mr Gandhi has argued that the judgment provides no precedent for awarding the maximum sentence and there is no discussion on the consequence of a two-year jail term. This appeal is hearable and must be disposed of with some urgency as it is a ploy to arbitrarily convict and disqualify legislators for making politically charged comments awarding them the quantum of punishment necessary to disqualify them. Could be an unacceptable example. Such a prominent instance may lead to the filing of multiple criminal cases by political rivals in different jurisdictions. It can also have the detrimental effect of using the courts to adapt the quantum of punishment to suit political needs.