How Rahul Gandhi, Arvind Kejriwal and Subramanian Swamy once united to challenge criminal defamation law

Congress' Rahul Gandhi's was convicted and sentenced to two years ' imprisonment by a Gujarat court in a criminal defamation case. The case will be added to the long list of cases in the recent past where politicians have dragged their rivals to courts citing harm to reputation..Unlike in the past when information gradually made its way to the audience, social media today has allowed faster spreading of opinions, views or bitter exchanges among politicians..While in some cases politicians have buried the hatchet with an apology, many others continue to pursue their defamation battle in courts. Though these examples show how politicians invoked the law of defamation to fight their battles in courts, there was also an occasion when the very same law brought some political rivals together. Below are some examples where defamation, defined under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and punishable under Section 500 of the IPC, was invoked by politicians against politicians..BJP’s Shyam Jaju v. AAP’s Saurabh Bharadwaj, OthersFormer Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) national vice president Shyam Jaju moved court against Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) leaders Saurabh Bhardwaj, Sanjay Singh, Durgesh Pathak and Dilip Kumar Pandey for making defamatory allegations against him and his son Sandesh.The AAP leaders had in a press conference held on January 22, alleged that Delhi BJP leader Adesh Gupta and Shyam Jaju's son had made illegal earnings through a private company.Following this, Jaju sent a legal notice to the AAP leaders demanding that they take back the allegations made against his son and delete all social media references to the same.Acting on Jaju’s plea, the Delhi High Court in February restrained the AAP functionaries to take down their allegations from social media platforms and restrained them from making further similar allegations. .BJP’s Hans Raj Hans, Manjinder Singh Sirsa v. AAP’s Manish SisodiaThe BJP leaders moved Delhi High Court against the trial court’s summoning order on the defamation complaint filed by the former Delhi deputy chief minister.Sisodia sued Hans, Sirsa and several other BJP leaders including Manoj Tiwari and Vijender Gupta for defamation after they alleged that he was involved in a corruption scam of nearly ₹2,000 crore related to the construction of new classrooms in Delhi's government schools.In January, the Delhi High Court stayed the proceedings before the trial court in the case giving relief to the BJP leaders..BJP’s Himanta Biswa Sarma v. AAP’s Manish SisodiaIn July, Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma filed a defamation complaint in a local court against Delhi’s Deputy Chief Minister Manish Sisodia. In a presser, Sisodia had accused Sarma of malpractices in tenders issued for PPE kits during the COVID-19 pandemic in Assam. Sarma, he alleged, during his stint as then Health Minister awarded the contract to his wife's company at an overvalued price.Sarma refuted the allegations and filed a defamation suit under Sections 499, 500 (defamation; punishment against defamation) and 501 (printing or engraving defamatory material) of the Indian Penal Code.Sisodia moved the Gauhati to quash the same but the High Court rejected the same.Sisodia challenged the Gauhati High Court order before the Supreme Court but eventually withdrew his plea.Assam’s Advocate General Devajit Saikiam who is representing the chief minister, told Bar and Bench that the suit has been heard once after Sisodia had withdrawn his plea before the Supreme Court. “The case is now fixed for hearing for Manish Sisodia (to appear). But he is behind bars (in another case),” he said..Section 499—Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations, makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the case hereinafter expected to defame that person..AAP’s Manish Sisodia v. BJP’s Manoj Tiwari, Vijender GuptaSisodia filed a defamation case in 2019 against Tiwari and Gupta for holding a presser in July 2019 alleging corruption in the award of contracts for the construction of classrooms in Delhi's government schools. Gupta had posed 24 questions on the microblogging site Twitter, claiming the answers would “expose a scam”.Gupta and Tiwari moved the Supreme Court. The apex court quashed the case against Gupta but dismissed Tiwari's plea. .AAP’s Kailash Gahlot v. BJP’s Vijender Gupta and OthersDelhi transport minister Kailash Gahlot knocked the doors of the Delhi High Court after the court’s single-judge refused to restrain BJP’s Vijender Gupta from posting content against him. The controversy arose after Gupta's posted allegations on social media on irregularities in the purchase of nearly 1,000 low-floor buses for the Delhi Transport Corporation.When the matter reached the Division Bench of the High Court, both leaders were asked to explore the possibility of an amicable settlement in the defamation case..BJP’s Dr Subramanian Swamy v. BJP’s Tajinder Pal Singh BaggaIn April, 2022, the Delhi High Court stayed the summons issued by a trial court against BJP functionary Sumbramanian Swamy in a defamation case filed by his own party member, BJP spokesperson Tajinder Pal Singh Bagga.The trial court a month before that had found “sufficient grounds” to proceed and summon Swamy, a former Union minister.Bagga alleged that that Swamy, who has over 10 million followers on Twitter, posted a “false and incorrect” tweet accusing him of being jailed after joining the BJP.The Court order recorded Bagga's submission that the tweet was “absolutely false and incorrect and was solely made to harm the reputation of the complainant and to defame him”.The senior leader moved the High Court and obtained a stay on the summons..Leaders of political parties should show their statesmanship and quality and healthy politics rather than accusing others.Madras High Court.AMMK’s TTV Dhinakaran v. The Public ProsecutorIn 2019, Amma Makkal Munnetra Kazhagam (AMMK) leader TTV Dhinakaran faced a defamation case for his alleged defamatory statements against then Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Edappadi K Palaniswami (EPS) during a public meeting. The High Court closed the criminal defamation proceedings against Dhinakaran observing political leaders “should restrain themselves from making serious allegations or criticism against the Constitutional functionaries” as they had huge following and the same would have a “serious impact”.“Of course, every citizen of a democratic country have a freedom of speech, but at the same time such criticism should not exceed affecting the sentiments of others also. The leaders of political parties should show their statesmanship and quality and healthy politics rather than accusing others by using vituperated language on political platform,” the order underlined..When defamation ‘united’ politiciansThe year 2016 was a significant one as regards criminal defamation with the Supreme Court upholding the Constitutional validity of Section 499 IPC which criminalises defamation.Interestingly, the challenge to the law’s Constitutional validity was brought to the court by some of those who had filed cases under the same law against each other. The politicians included Congress' Rahul Gandhi, BJP's Subramanian Swamy, and AAP's Arvind Kejriwal all of whom challenged the law. While upholding the law’s Constitution validity, the Supreme Court said that the right to free speech could not mean that a citizen can defame the other. “Protection of reputation is a fundamental right. It is also a human right. Cumulatively it serves the social interest,” it underscored..Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra was one of the counsel in the challenge to defamation law’s constitutional validity. On Rahul Gandhi’s recent conviction and sentence, Luthra underlined that a maximum sentence was “unusual” in a defamation case punishable with fine or sentence of up to two years, especially given that it is the first conviction. “Having said that, and after what is heard in the press, there could have been legitimate challenges, raised post summons and post notice, which appear not to have been taken,” he said.He pointed out that the solution now lies in moving an appeal and seeking stay on the conviction at the earliest. “A legitimate question arises is how the individual concerned can claim that he was defamed, but that would have to be seen in the context of the evidence led and the cross-examination,” said Luthra.