By Dr. Gyan Pathak
What is ‘understanding’ an utterance and what is ‘misunderstanding’? The answer is obvious – if someone understands exactly the same as to what was uttered is ‘understanding’ and if someone derives any other meaning is ‘misunderstanding’. Congress MP Rahul Gandhi’s conviction for two years of imprisonment with a fine of Rs 15,000 is clearly a case of ‘misunderstanding’ his utterance which was in fact targeted against Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a public servant who love to be called himself Pradhan Sevak of the Country, but not understood as such by one complainant BJP MLA and former minister of Gujarat Purnesh Modi and Chief Judicial Magistrate of Surat H H Varma.
At the end, the damage has been done. Lok Sabha secretariat has disqualified the Congress member from Wayanad of Kerala state from membership as a result of the conviction and the politico-legal war will follow making the functioning of the Parliament, which is in session, impossible. But still, it is necessary to go into the details of what actually was the complaint and how the learned CJM arrived at his’ bizarre’ decision as the noted lawyer Kapil Sibal said.
The complainant believed that Rahul Gandhi offended him and the judicial magistrate found that complainant was true in his submission, found Rahul Gandhi guilty of criminal defamation under section 499 and 500 of IPC and awarded him the sentence on March 23, 2023. Here, no amount of logic can justify that both the complainant and the judicial magistrate really understood Rahul’s utterance, and hence the judgement based on misunderstanding of an utterance is not a judgement at all but merely a decision from the seat of judgement.
Before going into merit and demerit of the case one needs to understand what constitute a meaning of an utterance keeping always in mind that no one is free to derive meaning other than what was really said, or else it would be a grave error leading to misunderstanding. Though there are many theories to understand the true meaning of an utterance – such as in semantics, semiotics, philosophy of language, metaphysics, metasemantics, psychological theories, logical theories, correspondence theory, coherence theory, constructive theory, consensus theory, and pragmatics theory in linguistics etc – one does not need to go through all of them to know the meaning of Rahul’s utterance.
Moreover, there is no need, and no one could be compelled, even by a judgement of a court, that Rahul Gandhi didn’t actually target PM Modi but another Modi who was even unknown to Rahul Gandhi, as the complainant complained and the judicial magistrate believed. Had they known the simple fact that an utterance cannot be divorced from its context, they could not have landed into such a grave misunderstanding.
Let us put the matter straight. Rahul’s utterance came during an election rally in Karnataka on April 13, 2019. One can recall, at that time there were several fugitives, surnamed Modi who had committed offence and fled even outside the country while PM Narendra Modi were ruling the country. There were also allegations against PM Modi and his government that they had been supporting their favourite business persons and industrialists and BJP leaders were resorting to even nepotism.
A language and its usage are decided by the context in which they are uttered and no one has power over it. It was therefore but natural of a leader in opposition to ask questions or raise probing fingers on the leader of the ruling establishment who had come on the promise of making the country free of corruption, but increasing number of fraudsters were becoming fugitives with overt and covert support of the ruling establishment. Modi himself was alleged for corruption and lobbying for a favourite industrialist in the Rafale deal.
Rahul Gandhi had said, “Achha, ek Chhota sa sawaal, in sab ke naam, in sab choron ke naam, Modi Modi Modi kaise hai? Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi. Aur abhi thoda dhoondenge to aur bahut saare Modi niklenge.” (OK, one small question, in the name of all these, in the name of all thieves, how it come Modi Modi Modi? Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi. If search a little more many more Modi would come out.)
Meaning and target was clear, in which the complainant was not referred to even remotely. And no one has right to derive meaning whatever one like to, since such derivation lead us into a domain of “misunderstanding.” Gujarat court has fist derived wrong meaning and then convicted the utterer who did not mean that for which he was convicted. It is a judicial wrong.
Now come to legal point of view regarding meaning of an utterance and when it becomes a defamation. Even by simply going through the Chapter XXI of the Indian Penal Code, in which defamation was legally defined and it was also explained what does not constitute defamation, it is clear that a general statement for many cannot be termed defamation for an individual, more so when one is not remotely referred to. For example, if one says that Man is selfish, or Money is theft, he can not be convicted on complaint of a person that he was defamed by labelling him selfish or thief.
Moreover, no person can be held guilty of defamation when one asks a question to the audience, for an answer or for consideration of a burning issue. Rahul Gandhi has a right to campaign, and bring issues to electorate for their consideration while exercising their vote. It is a common thing in democracy that the opposition and ruling establishment trade charges with each other while addressing electorate appealing them to exercise their voting rights carefully.
It must also be noted that the complainant is a BJP leader and former minister of Gujarat. Though he had filed the case on April 16, 2019, he had given a second though to his action, and was himself convinced that filing the case was his over-reaction. However, he was not allowed to withdraw the case. Consequently, last year he had reportedly sought a stay from the High Court of Gujarat which was granted on March 7, 2022. However, he again went to High Court on February 16, 2023, seeking vacation of the stay which was granted. Trial then resumed on February 27, 2023, before the new CJM HH Varma who gave his judgement on March 23, 2023, with lightning speed.
The whole issue does not seem to be fair, but a judge has a right to deliver a judgement, even a wrong one, that could be challenged in the appellate higher courts who has responsibility to correct the errors in the judgement. There might be much more in this issue than what has appeared on the surface.
Another issue of the very desirability of the defamation law in a democracy is under question. In democracy, a critical view of a political party or leader against others must not be considered defamatory. (IPA Service)
