Bombay High Court Quashes Summons Against Politician in Defamation Case for Alleged Remarks Against RSS — Statements Not Defamatory as They Did Not Refer to Complainant or Any Identifiable Individual.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused
  • 49
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Rahul Gandhi, a Member of Parliament and Vice President of the Indian National Congress, filed a criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking quashing of the order dated 11 July 2014 passed by the 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi, in OMA/353/2014. The Magistrate had summoned the petitioner to appear and answer a charge under Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for alleged defamation. The complaint was filed by Respondent No.1, Rajesh Mahadev Kunte, a resident of Bhiwandi and a member of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), who claimed to be the Karyawah (Secretary) of RSS, Bhiwandi Taluka. The complainant alleged that during an election rally on 6 March 2014 at village Sonale near Bhiwandi, the petitioner addressed the public and media and stated that members of RSS had killed Mahatma Gandhi. The English translation of the alleged offending portion was: "We gave the telephone to India, This is their style. Gandhiji was killed by them; persons from the R.S.S. Shot Gandhiji. And today their people talk of Gandhiji. Sardar Patel: Sardar Patel Ji was a leader of the Congress Party. He was written ve..." The complainant contended that this statement defamed him as a member of RSS. The petitioner argued that the statement did not refer to the complainant or any identifiable individual, and therefore no offence of defamation was made out. The court analyzed the essential ingredients of defamation under Section 499 IPC, which requires that the imputation must be concerning a person who can be identified. The court held that a general statement against a group or community, without reference to any specific individual, does not constitute defamation against a member of that group unless the member is directly or indirectly referred to. The court found that the alleged statement did not refer to the complainant or any identifiable individual, and therefore no offence under Section 500 IPC was made out. The court also noted that the complainant had not alleged that the statement was made with the intention to harm his reputation or that he was specifically targeted. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the summoning order and the complaint, and discharged the petitioner from the proceedings.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Defamation - Section 499, 500 IPC - Imputation concerning any person - The essential ingredient of defamation is that the imputation must be made concerning a person who can be identified. A general statement against a group or community, without reference to any specific individual, does not constitute defamation against a member of that group unless the member is directly or indirectly referred to. Held that the alleged statement did not refer to the complainant or any identifiable individual, and therefore no offence under Section 500 IPC is made out. (Paras 2-10)

B) Criminal Procedure Code - Inherent Powers - Section 482 CrPC - Quashing of criminal proceedings - The High Court can exercise inherent powers to quash proceedings where the allegations do not disclose any offence or are manifestly absurd. Held that the complaint and summoning order were liable to be quashed as the essential ingredients of defamation were absent. (Paras 11-15)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the statements made by the petitioner during a political rally, alleging that RSS members killed Mahatma Gandhi, constitute defamation under Section 500 IPC against the complainant who is a member of RSS.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is allowed. The order dated 11 July 2014 passed by the 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi, in OMA/353/2014 and the complaint filed by Respondent No.1 are quashed. The petitioner is discharged from the proceedings.

Law Points

  • Defamation requires imputation concerning any person
  • Section 499 IPC
  • Section 500 IPC
  • Criminal Procedure Code Section 482
  • inherent powers of High Court
  • quashing of criminal proceedings
  • political speech
  • freedom of speech and expression
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2015 LawText (BOM) (03) 60

Criminal Writ Petition No.4960 of 2014

2015-03-10

M.L. Tahaliyani

Mr. R.S. Cheema, Sr. counsel a/w Mr. Prasad Dhakepalkar, Sr. Advocate, Mr. K.C. Mittal and Ms Tarannum Cheema i/b Mr. Manmohan Rao and Ms Deepa Kamath for Petitioner. Mr. V.S. Kokaje, senior counsel i/b Ms Anuradha A. Garge a/w Mr. Vinayak Dixit, and Mr. R.S. Apte, senior counsel for Respondent No.1. Mr. S.K. Shinde, P.P. a/w Mr. V.B.K. Deshmukh, APP, for the Respondent No.2-State.

Mr. Rahul Gandhi, M.P.

Rajesh Mahadev Kunte, State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution and Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of summoning order and complaint for defamation.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought quashing of the order dated 11 July 2014 passed by the 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi, summoning him to appear and answer a charge under Section 500 IPC.

Filing Reason

The petitioner was summoned by the Magistrate on a complaint filed by Respondent No.1 alleging that the petitioner made defamatory statements against RSS members during an election rally.

Previous Decisions

The 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi, passed the summoning order on 11 July 2014 in OMA/353/2014.

Issues

Whether the alleged statement made by the petitioner constitutes defamation under Section 500 IPC against the complainant who is a member of RSS. Whether the summoning order and complaint are liable to be quashed under Section 482 CrPC.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the statement did not refer to the complainant or any identifiable individual, and therefore no offence of defamation is made out. Respondent No.1 argued that the statement defamed him as a member of RSS and that the summoning order was valid.

Ratio Decidendi

For an offence of defamation under Section 499 IPC, the imputation must be concerning a person who can be identified. A general statement against a group or community, without reference to any specific individual, does not constitute defamation against a member of that group unless the member is directly or indirectly referred to. The alleged statement did not refer to the complainant or any identifiable individual, and therefore no offence under Section 500 IPC is made out.

Judgment Excerpts

The essential ingredient of defamation is that the imputation must be made concerning a person who can be identified. A general statement against a group or community, without reference to any specific individual, does not constitute defamation against a member of that group.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed by Respondent No.1 before the 3rd Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhiwandi, who issued summons to the petitioner on 11 July 2014. The petitioner then filed the present criminal writ petition before the Bombay High Court seeking quashing of the summoning order and complaint.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 499, 500
  • Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: 482
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Union of India's Appeal in Pay Anomaly Case - Stepping Up of Pay Not Permissible Under FR 22 When Junior's Higher Pay Is Due to ACP Scheme, Not Promotion. The Court held that FR 22 does not apply when the junior's higher pay is d...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Acquits In-laws in Dowry Death Case Due to Inconsistent Dying Declarations. Conviction under Sections 498A and 306 IPC set aside as dying declarations were contradictory and relatives turned hostile.