Complainant Need Not Be the Person Defamed: Bombay High Court Declines to Quash Rahul Gandhi Defamation Process

Respondent No.2, who claims to be a BJP member, alleges that the petitioner, a Congress Member of Parliament, said at a rally in Rajasthan on 20.9.2018 that "Hindustan ka chowkidar chor hai", posted "The sad truth about India's Commander-in-Thief." on Twitter on 24.9.2018, and repeated the theft allegation at Amethi on 25.9.2018 (paras 3-8). On 28.8.2019 the Metropolitan Magistrate, 18th Court, Girgaon, issued process under Section 500 IPC (paras 1-2). The petitioner contended that the complainant was not a ‘person aggrieved’ under Section 199 CrPC and that the BJP is too indeterminate a body to be defamed; the complainant and the Advocate General supported his standing (paras 11-16).

The question was whether the complainant is a "person aggrieved" within the meaning of Section 199 of the CrPC (para 17). Following John Thomas v. Dr. K. Jagadeesan, the Court noted that the words "some person aggrieved" mean the complainant need not be the person actually defamed, and whether he has reason to feel aggrieved depends on the facts of each case (para 19). On a prima facie reading, the post describes the Prime Minister, also the BJP's prominent leader, as the "Commander of Thieves"; at this threshold stage the imputation cannot be said to be incapable of extending to those clearly identified with the party (para 20). Whether it was confined to the Prime Minister or reached party members and functionaries "is a determination that must await trial" (para 20). On Explanation 2 to Section 499 IPC, the Court referred to the Delhi High Court's view in Dr. Shashi Tharoor v. State that a registered political party, with a defined constitution and structure, has a definite and identifiable legal identity and is not an indeterminate mass merely because its membership is large (para 21). It declined to interfere with the magistrate's order (para 22).