Lesser punishment wouldn't have served 'purpose' of defamation law: Court on Rahul's sentence

According to experts, this is one of the rare cases where a public figure has been convicted and sentenced to two years in a criminal defamation case

Awarding the maximum punishment prescribed under the defamation law to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, the court of chief judicial magistrate in Surat held that if Rahul Gandhi had received lesser punishment, "the purpose of defamation law" wouldn't have served as it would have sent a message that "any individual would easily defame another individual."

The judgement passed by chief judicial magistrate Harish Hasmukh Varma mentions that despite being "advised" by the Supreme Court to be "alert" while making statements, "the conduct of the accused (Rahul Gandhi) doesn't seem to have changed."

The judgement refers to Rahul Gandhi's written apologies to the Supreme Court in a contempt case related to his slogan 'Chowkidar Chor Hai'. The court referred to this case following submission by complainant Purnesh Modi's lawyer that the apex court had asked Rahul Gandhi to remain "alert" while making statements in future.

The Congress MP from Wayanad, Rahul Gandhi was sentenced to two years imprisonment, the maximum punishment prescribed under the criminal defamation law under Section 499 and Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case was filed by Surat BJP MLA and former minister Purnesh Modi.

Also Read | Does Congress want complete freedom for Rahul to abuse people: BJP

According to Modi, Rahul's utterances in his public speeches in Karnataka during the Lok Sabha poll campaign in 2019 were defamatory: the Congress MP, while referring to "Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi and Narendra Modi", had asked in a speech, "...How come they all have common surnames? How come all the thieves have Modi as surnames?"

The judgement says that the accused is a member of parliament (MP) and "addressing the public as an MP is a serious issue because when a person addresses as an MP, it has a very wide impact on the public and due to this the seriousness of the crime is more."

The judgement notes, "If the accused is given lesser punishment, it will send a wrong message to the public and the purpose of defamation itself will not be served as any individual will easily defame another individual."

"Considering all the facts of the case, it is justified to sentence the accused to two years of imprisonment as prescribed under the provision," Varma has noted in his 168-page judgement.

During the brief hearing on quantum of punishment, Rahul Gandhi told the court that he didn't insult anyone and "loves every citizen of the country." He told the court that he spoke in the "interest of people discharging his duty."

While granting him bail, the court also suspended the conviction for 30 days allowing Rahul to approach sessions court for filing appeal. Rahul's status as a parliamentarian from Wayanad will depend on the sessions court order. If the court refuses to stay the conviction, he will have the risk of being disqualified.

According to legal experts, this is one of the rare cases where a public figure has been convicted and sentenced to two years in a criminal defamation case.