Back
Delivers Knockout Blow to BJP's Defamation Suit Against Rahul Gandhi
In a sharply reasoned verdict, the
has quashed criminal defamation proceedings against Congress leader
Rahul Gandhi
(accused No. 4) in a case filed by the
over explosive "40% commission" advertisements run during the 2023 Karnataka Assembly elections. Justice
S. Sunil Dutt Yadav
, delivering the order on
, held that continuing the case would be an
"
,"
citing fatal flaws in the complaint's authorization, lack of evidence linking Gandhi to the ads, and no
under
.
The ruling provides significant relief to Gandhi, who had challenged the proceedings under before the . Notably, the order applies only to Gandhi; proceedings against other accused, including Karnataka CM Siddaramaiah and Deputy CM D.K. Shivakumar , continue.
The 'PayCM' Firestorm: Origins of the Controversy
The dispute traces back to May 2023, amid a high-stakes Assembly election where Congress ousted the BJP government. Congress unleashed a blistering "PayCM" (play on "PayTM") campaign, accusing the then-BJP regime—led by former CM Basavaraj Bommai —of extracting a staggering 40% commission from contractors for public works. Full-page newspaper ads on , featured a "Corruption Rate Card" alleging irregularities in government schemes, with photos including Rahul Gandhi's.
BJP's Karnataka State Secretary S. Keshava Prasad filed a private complaint (PCR 3878/2023, CC 7399/2024) against the , its president, Leader of Opposition, and Gandhi, claiming conspiracy and defamation of the party. The ads, BJP argued, tarnished its image by insinuating corruption from . Gandhi reportedly shared the ad on Twitter (now X) with remarks targeting BJP, but no formal exhibit or certificate was produced initially.
A magistrate took cognizance on , recorded sworn statements, and issued summons on . All accused secured bail in June 2024—Siddaramaiah and Shivakumar on , Gandhi on —prompting Gandhi's High Court plea.
Petitioner's Arsenal: No Link, No Locus, No
Gandhi's counsel, led by Senior Advocate Shashikiran Shetty , fired on multiple fronts:
- No direct imputation : Ads targeted constitutional functionaries and schemes, not BJP explicitly; mere photo insufficient.
- defect : Under , only an "aggrieved person" can complain. BJP's state secretary lacked national party authorization (Ex. C1 from state president invalid).
- Evidentiary vacuum : No proof Gandhi "instructed" publication; Twitter post unexhibited, uncertified. He held no Congress post in May 2023.
- Procedural lapses : No inquiry for outstation accused; magistrate's order lacked application of mind.
- Protected speech : Falls under Exceptions 3, 9, 10 to Section 499 IPC (government criticism).
BJP's Counterpunch: Prima Facie Taint and Common Intent
BJP's advocate urged trial, arguing: - Magistrate's prima facie finding sufficient; evidence value for later. - Political parties qualify as "persons" under ; reputational harm to BJP evident. - Gandhi's tweet evidenced intent and common intention. - Organizational defamation actionable; no bar under for private complaints.
Judicial Dissection: Authorization Flaw and Evidence Shortfall
Justice Yadav meticulously dismantled the complaint. Central was 's mandate for an "aggrieved person." Citing , the court stressed courts determine this case-by-case; unauthorized complaints void proceedings. Here, BJP (national party) was claimant, but state unit's authorization failed—state president couldn't represent national entity.
On Gandhi's role: Ads showed no "nexus" beyond photo; Section 499 IPC demands ("intending to harm"). No evidence of instructions; his non-leadership status (per memo) precluded . The unexhibited tweet—crucial for BJP—was absent when summons issued, rendering material "legally deficient."
Invoking , the court clarified: Defamation of "collection of persons" (party) requires identifiable group; vague innuendos against functionaries don't stretch to BJP. No Section 202 inquiry prejudiced the Delhi-resident accused.
Precedents like and reinforced: Unauthorized or non-aggrieved complaints invalidate trials.
Key Observations from the Bench
"Such authorisation of the President of the State Unit cannot be accepted as legal authorisation to represent the BJP as a National Party."
"In the absence of any material to show that the advertisement was at the instance of accused No.4, the reliance on the advertisement by itself could not lead to the assertion that it was published by accused No.4 with the requisite intention to defame."
"Sans the tweet, the advertisement by itself as noticed above cannot lead to any presumption of accused No.4 having defamed the complainant."
"In the present case, the imputation itself is by way ofand such imputation is sought to be stretched to the party."
"The continuance of the proceedings would amount to an."
Clean Sweep for Gandhi: Proceedings Quashed
"The petition is allowed. The continuance of the proceedings would amount to an abuse... and the proceedings in C.C.No.7399/2024... insofar as the petitioner - accused No.4 is concerned, is set aside."
This targeted relief shields Gandhi from trial, underscoring safeguards for political rhetoric in elections—especially absent solid evidence. It signals courts' intolerance for loosely authorized defamation suits post-election, potentially deterring similar politically motivated complaints while preserving genuine ones. The "40% commission" saga, a pivotal 2023 poll plank that propelled Congress to power (135 seats vs. BJP's 66), lives on in rhetoric, but Gandhi exits this chapter unscathed.
