Legally Speaking | From Medha Patkar to Rahul Gandhi: A look at key defamation cases

Defamation suits are not uncommon in Indian politics. This article looks at a few recent defamation cases.

Lakshmi Murdeshwar Puri v. Saket Gokhale

In June 2021, TMC leader Saket Gokhale put out a series of tweets attacking BJP minister Hardeep Suri and his wife Lakshmi Puri. The tweets called for an enquiry by the Enforcement Directorate claiming that the couple had bought a house worth ₹10 crore (present estimated cost of ₹25 crore) in Switzerland using ‘black money.’ Gokhale made the claims based on the asset declaration filed by Puri prior to his Rajya Sabha election. Lakshmi Puri challenged the tweets and sued Gokhale for defamation before the Delhi High Court.

Gokhale initially contested the case and even filed a written statement. However, on August 23 last year, his counsel withdrew from the case stating that he had stopped receiving instructions. Subsequently, despite summons, Gokhale did not enter an appearance. The July 1 judgment while discussing his non-appearance notes that it was “as if he did not care about the outcome of the proceedings at all.” The Court concluded that Gokhale had undertaken a roving enquiry without due diligence. It also questioned him for suddenly attacking the plaintiff for a property bought a decade ago. Holding Gokhale guilty of defamation the Court ordered him to pay damages of Rupees Fifty Lakhs to Puri. Interestingly, Puri in her plaint had demanded that Gokhale pay damages of ₹5 crore to the PM CARES fund, which the Court refused.

V.K. Saxena v. Medha Patkar

A Magistrate’s Court in Delhi recently adjudged activist Medha Patkar guilty of making defamatory remarks against Lieutenant Governor V.K. Saxena.

The case is more than two decades old and arose based on the press note dated November 25, 2000, titled ‘true face of patriot.’ In the press note Patkar, alluded to Saxena undertaking Hawala transactions. She also accused him of mortgaging the interest of the people of Gujarat and being a coward.

The Court convicted her of defamation on May 24. While Saxena asked for the maximum penalty, which is two years, the Court taking note of Patkar’s age and medical conditions sentenced her to five months imprisonment and ordered her to pay 10 lakhs as compensation to Saxena. The court noted “Her deliberate and calculated statements indicated a clear intent to tarnish Saxena's reputation without substantial evidence. Moreover, Patkar's use of emotionally charged language and focus on sensitive issues such as financial integrity and national loyalty illustrated her deliberate efforts to damage Saxena's reputation further.”

The Court has suspended the sentence allowing Patkar to appeal the judgment.

Purnesh Modi v. Rahul Gandhi

On April 13, 2019, while giving a speech during the 17th Lok Sabha General elections Rahul Gandhi remarked "In sab choron ke naam Modi, Modi, Modi, Kyun hai? Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi” (Why are all these thieves named Modi? Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi). A few days later Gujarat MLA Purnesh Modi filed a criminal defamation case at Surat against Gandhi and claimed that the remarks had defamed the entire Modi community.

Gandhi emphasised that his statements were aimed to highlight corruption and were not directed towards any community. Rejecting his defence on March 23, 2023, the Magistrate’s Court in Surat held him to be guilty and awarded him the maximum sentence of two years imprisonment. On the very next day the Lok Sabha secretariat issued a notification informing that Gandhi had been disqualified from the Parliament as he had been convicted and sentenced to a term of two years in jail.  Gandhi moved the Gujarat High Court seeking a stay on the conviction. The Gujarat High Court on July 7, 2023, in a 125-page judgment refused to stay the conviction and noted that Gandhi’s actions displayed moral turpitude.

Gandhi moved the Supreme Court against the High Court order. On August 4, 2023, the Supreme Court stayed the conviction. In its order, the Court criticised the trial court for awarding the maximum sentence without giving any specific reason for the same. It observed, “It is to be noted that it is only on account of the maximum sentence of two years imposed by the learned Trial Judge, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short, “the Act”) have come into play. Had the sentence been even a day lesser, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act would not have been attracted.” The Court also noted that persons in public life must exercise restraint while making public speeches.

M.J. Akbar v. Priya Ramani

On October 12, 2017, journalist Priya Ramani wrote a piece titled ‘To the Harvey Weinsteins of the world’ fashioned as an open letter to all male bosses. Initially, she did not name journalist MJ Akbar in her piece. However, a year later when the ‘me too’ movement gained momentum in India she chose to publish a tweet disclosing that the boss referred to by her in the piece was Akbar. Several female journalists wrote exposes about Akbar and the harassment they had faced. Though, Akbar denied all charges the complaints were successful in getting him to step down from his post as minister of state for external affairs in 2018.

In 2019, he filed a criminal defamation case against Ramani stating she intentionally maligned him and lowered his reputation with baseless allegations and tarnished his reputation for several years. Ramani took the defence that she had spoken the truth to highlight the issue of workplace sexual harassment. On February 17, 2021, the trial Court acquitted Ramani of charges of defamation and noted that Ramani had been successful in establishing her defence of truth. It rejected Akbar’s argument on delay and noted, “The woman cannot be punished for raising her voice against the sex abuse on the pretext of criminal complaint of defamation as the right of reputation cannot be protected at the cost of the right of life and dignity of woman as guaranteed in Indian Constitution under article 21 and right of equality before the law and equal protection of law as guaranteed under article 14 of the Constitution. The woman has a right to put her grievance at any platform of her choice and even after decades.’

Akbar has appealed the judgment before the Delhi High Court and the matter is presently sub-judice.

Parijata Bharadwaj, a lawyer and researcher based in New Delhi, co-founded the Jagdalpur Legal Aid Group that offered legal services to adivasis in Chhattisgarh. The views expressed are personal.