The Supreme Court on Monday granted a stay on trial proceedings in the criminal defamation matter against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, which centres on his reported use of the phrases "Choro Ke Sardar" and "Commander-in-Thief" in reference to Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The bench extended interim protection to Gandhi while it takes up the question for further consideration.
A two-judge panel comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh took up Gandhi's petition, which contests the Bombay High Court's 8 September ruling that left the criminal defamation proceedings against him intact. The panel directed that notice be served with a return date set four weeks out, and held that all further proceedings at the trial court level would remain on hold pending the outcome above.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented Gandhi before the country's highest court.
The proceedings now before the court arose from a petition lodged before a Metropolitan Magistrate in Maharashtra by Mahesh Shrishrimal, a BJP member. The complaint put forward the position that Gandhi's use of the phrase "Choro Ke Sardar" in reference to the Prime Minister constituted an attack directed not only at Modi as an individual but, through that association, at the governing party and its wider membership, with the filing contending that the collective standing of both was harmed as a result.
Shrishrimal further contended that applying those terms to Modi amounted to casting all BJP members under the same characterisation, which he argued gave party workers a legal basis to pursue defamation claims. A summons directed at Gandhi followed after the Magistrate found the complaint warranted formal proceedings.
Gandhi subsequently filed a petition before the Bombay High Court placing both the summons and the broader proceedings under legal scrutiny, with the filing aimed at having the case set aside altogether. Two arguments were put before the High Court by Gandhi's legal representatives.
Senior Advocate Pasbola, retained on Gandhi's behalf, put forward the position that the complaint could not be sustained on procedural grounds. The defence also held that Gandhi's remarks had not pointed to the BJP or any other political party, and that no specific or identifiable group of people had been singled out by what was said.
Central to that position was a core tenet governing criminal defamation proceedings: any complaint brought under that body of law requires an identifiable party — whether an individual or a collective — who can demonstrate that the statement in question was directed at them. Pasbola contended that, in the absence of an explicitly identified party or a sufficiently defined group, Shrishrimal held no standing to bring the prosecution forward.
In its order dated 8 September, the Bombay High Court declined Gandhi's bid to have the proceedings quashed, finding that the BJP — as a nationally registered political party — constituted a sufficiently identifiable body for the purposes of the case. The court noted that Gandhi's characterisation of the Prime Minister — a BJP member — as a "commander-in-chief of thieves" could not, at that preliminary point, be read as targeting only the party's top ranks, adding that whether the remark carried an imputation and what effect it might have on ordinary party members were matters to be examined at trial. "The Magistrate's order contains no illegality," the judge concluded, upholding the decision.
In reaching its decision, the High Court drew upon a Delhi High Court ruling in the Shashi Tharoor matter, which had established that a registered political party constitutes an identifiable and determinable body for defamation purposes.
No backing from the state came through for Gandhi during those proceedings. In submissions to the High Court, Maharashtra Advocate General Dr. Milind Sathe put forward the position that the bench needed to assess two distinct questions: whether the constituent elements of defamation had been established, and whether the remarks in question targeted a sufficiently definite and identifiable group. Counsel further put forward the position that the legislation allows an aggrieved party to bring a prosecution once such a class of persons is identified, and on that basis urged the court to allow the matter to proceed to the evidentiary stage rather than dismissing it at the outset.
At the heart of the Supreme Court dispute lies a threshold question about legal standing: whether a party worker can pursue a criminal defamation case when the allegedly offending statement makes no direct reference to the party or any of its members. Gandhi's position, as stated in his filings, holds that directing political criticism at an individual figure does not automatically extend that characterisation to every member of the party that figure leads. The complainant's position, as set out in the filing, is that labelling the Prime Minister "head of thieves" inevitably draws his party and its broader membership into the same characterisation.
Respondents are due to lodge their replies four weeks from the date of the order, at which point the court will take up the question of whether the stay ought to remain in place while the appeal proceeds to a hearing on the merits.
