Defamation penalty

The conviction and sentencing of Rahul Gandhi by a Surat court has turned the spotlight on the controversial defamation law. The Congress leader, now disqualified from the Lok Sabha, has been found guilty of defaming the entire ‘Modi community’ on a complaint lodged by former Gujarat minister and BJP MLA Purnesh Modi. The court has handed out the harshest punishment under Section 500 of the IPC — two-year imprisonment with a fine — even as the sentence has been suspended for 30 days to enable Rahul to challenge the verdict in a higher court. Questions are being asked about whether the trial court followed the due process while proceeding against an accused outside its territorial jurisdiction.

Name-calling and mudslinging are par for the course during electioneering in India. Most politicians have no qualms about making below-the-belt remarks against their opponents. In his speech at an election rally in Karnataka in April 2019, Rahul insinuated that every Modi was a thief. The comment deserves to be condemned in the strongest terms, but the punishment is disproportionate to his offence. A written apology would have served the cause of justice. The trial court should have taken a cue from Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal’s apology spree of 2018, when he had expressed regret for his statements against rival politicians such as Nitin Gadkari, Kapil Sibal and Bikram Singh Majithia.

The defamation law is widely perceived to be anti-democratic in letter and spirit, even as the Supreme Court had asserted in May 2016 that the right to freedom of expression was not an absolute one. There is no doubt that defamation laws are being misused in India and abroad to stifle free speech and settle scores. UNESCO had observed last year that ‘the global campaign to decriminalise defamation, which was gaining traction a decade ago, was now facing a setback’. The UN body had also red-flagged a rise in abusive practices such as ‘forum shopping’, wherein litigants file cases in courts from which the most favourable outcome is expected. The ulterior motives of such petitioners make it imperative to revisit the defamation law and curb its use as a weapon of vendetta.