Read the following passage and answer the questions that follow.
The rigours of the law and the tribulations of politics have come together to bedevil Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. An election-time jibe he had made in 2019 — ‘how come all of these thieves have Modi in their names?’ — has been declared by a court in Surat to be defamatory. Mr. Gandhi has been sentenced to two years in prison, the maximum sentence for criminal defamation, and disqualified from his membership in the Lok Sabha. Both the conviction and sentence raise legal questions. Does the remark amount to defaming anyone in particular, or to people with the surname ‘Modi’ as a group? Case law indicates that the expression ‘collection of persons’ used in Section 499 of the IPC, with reference to those who can be defamed, has to be an identifiable class or group and that the particular member who initiates criminal proceedings for defamation must demonstrate personal harm or injury by the alleged defamatory statement. It is difficult to sustain the argument that all those with the surname, and not merely the three individuals including Prime Minister Narendra Modi who were referred to, can be aggrieved persons. Also, it is not clear if the complainant, BJP MLA Purnesh Modi, had shown that he was aggrieved by the alleged slur either personally or as a member of the ‘Modi’ group.
The maximum sentence is also troubling. Statutes prescribe maximum jail terms so that trial courts use their discretion to award punishments in proportion to the gravity of the crime. It is questionable whether attacking an indeterminate set of people with a general remark will amount to defamation, and even if it did, whether it is so grave as to warrant the maximum sentence. The correctness of the judgment will be decided on appeal, but the political cost to Mr. Gandhi in the form of disqualification from the House and from electoral contest will have a lasting impact, unless he obtains a stay on the conviction rather than mere suspension of sentence. In a country that often frets over criminalisation of politics, corruption and hate speeches, it is ironic that criminal defamation should overwhelm the political career of a prominent leader. A modern democracy should not treat defamation as a criminal offence at all. It is a legacy of an era in which questioning authority was considered a grave crime. In contemporary times, criminal defamation mainly acts as a tool to suppress criticism of public servants and corporate misdeeds. In 2016, the Supreme Court upheld criminal defamation without adequate regard to the chilling effect it has on free speech, and to that, one must now add, political opposition and dissent. Opposition parties expressing dismay at the verdict against Mr. Gandhi should include abolishing criminal defamation in their agenda.
1. What is the legal basis for Rahul Gandhi’s conviction for criminal defamation?
a) Section 499 of the IPC
b) Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India
c) Section 377 of the IPC
d) Section 124A of the IPC
e) None of the above
2. Who is the complainant in Rahul Gandhi’s criminal defamation case?
a) Narendra Modi
b) Purnesh Modi
c) Rahul Gandhi
d) The Congress Party
e) None of the above
3. What is the maximum sentence for criminal defamation in India?
a) 1 year
b) 2 years
c) 3 years
d) 5 years
e) 1 years
4. What is the impact of Rahul Gandhi’s conviction on his political career?
a) He has been disqualified from his membership in the Lok Sabha.
b) He has been expelled from the Congress Party.
c) He has been banned from participating in elections.
d) He has been appointed as the leader of the opposition.
e) None of the above
5. What is the argument against treating defamation as a criminal offence?
a) It is a legacy of an era in which questioning authority was considered a grave crime.
b) It is not a serious enough offence to warrant criminal punishment.
c) It is difficult to prove and often results in wrongful convictions.
d) It disproportionately affects political opposition and dissent.
e) None of the above
6. What is the significance of the phrase “collection of persons” used in Section 499 of the IPC?
A. It refers to an identifiable class or group of people who can be defamed.
B. It refers to any person or group of people, irrespective of their identity.
C. It refers to only those people who are well-known public figures.
D. It refers to a group of people who belong to the same political party.
E. None of the above
7. Why is the maximum sentence for criminal defamation in India troubling, according to the passage?
A. It allows trial courts to award punishments that are disproportionate to the crime.
B. It is not clear what constitutes criminal defamation in the first place.
C. It is rarely enforced and therefore serves no purpose.
D. It is too lenient and does not deter people from making defamatory remarks.
E. None of the above
8. What is the legacy of criminal defamation, according to the passage?
A. It is a tool to suppress criticism of public servants and corporate misdeeds.
B. It is a way to ensure that politicians are held accountable for their actions.
C. It is a way to protect the reputation of individuals and groups.
D. It is a way to maintain law and order in a democracy.
E. None of the above
9. What should opposition parties do, according to the passage?
A. Abolish criminal defamation from their agenda.
B. Include criminal defamation in their agenda.
C. Use criminal defamation to suppress criticism of their opponents.
D. Take a neutral stance on the issue of criminal defamation.
E. None of the above
10. What is the main argument made by the author regarding the use of criminal defamation laws in India?
A) Criminal defamation should only be used in cases of extreme harm or injury caused by defamatory statements.
B) Criminal defamation should be abolished altogether in modern democracies.
C) Criminal defamation laws in India should be reformed to make them less punitive.
D) Criminal defamation laws in India are necessary to protect public servants and corporate interests from criticism.
E) None of the above
Answers and Solution:
1- a
Explanation:The passage mentions that Rahul Gandhi’s conviction and sentence for criminal defamation raises legal questions, and it goes on to discuss the interpretation of Section 499 of the IPC with reference to the expression “collection of persons” and identifiable groups.
2- b
Explanation:The passage states that the complainant in Rahul Gandhi’s criminal defamation case is BJP MLA Purnesh Modi.
3- b
Explanation:The passage states that Rahul Gandhi has been sentenced to two years in prison, which is the maximum sentence for criminal defamation.
4- a
Explanation:The passage mentions that Rahul Gandhi has been disqualified from his membership in the Lok Sabha as a result of his conviction for criminal defamation.
5- d
Explanation:The passage argues that criminal defamation mainly acts as a tool to suppress criticism of public servants and corporate misdeeds and adds that political opposition and dissent are also affected by this.
6- A
Explanation:The passage explains that the expression “collection of persons” used in Section 499 of the IPC, with reference to those who can be defamed, has to be an identifiable class or group. This means that the group of people who can be defamed must be a particular, identifiable group or class.
7- A
Explanation:The passage notes that statutes prescribe maximum jail terms so that trial courts use their discretion to award punishments in proportion to the gravity of the crime. The passage goes on to question whether attacking an indeterminate set of people with a general remark will amount to defamation, and even if it did, whether it is so grave as to warrant the maximum sentence. This suggests that the maximum sentence for criminal defamation can result in punishments that are disproportionate to the crime committed.
8- A
Explanation:The passage explains that criminal defamation mainly acts as a tool to suppress criticism of public servants and corporate misdeeds. It further notes that criminal defamation is a legacy of an era in which questioning authority was considered a grave crime, suggesting that its continued existence is unjustified in contemporary times.
9- A
Explanation:The passage suggests that opposition parties expressing dismay at the verdict against Mr. Gandhi should include abolishing criminal defamation in their agenda. This means that opposition parties should work towards the abolition of criminal defamation rather than promoting it or remaining neutral on the issue.
10- B
Explanation:The author argues in the passage that criminal defamation should not be considered a criminal offense at all in contemporary times, and that it mainly acts as a tool to suppress criticism of public servants and corporate misdeeds. The author believes that it is a legacy of an era in which questioning authority was considered a grave crime, and that it has a chilling effect on free speech and political opposition. The author therefore suggests that opposition parties should include abolishing criminal defamation in their agenda.