Sushil Kumar Modi’s passing prompts inquiries on the Rahul Gandhi defamation case tied to the “Modi surname” remark. Legal experts indicate heirs retain the option to proceed with the lawsuit.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
PATNA: With the recent passing of Sushil Kumar Modi, a prominent BJP leader and former Deputy Chief Minister of Bihar, questions have emerged regarding the fate of the defamation case he had filed against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi over his controversial “Modi surname” remark. Legal experts have shed light on the matter, stating that Sushil Modi’s legal heirs retain the option to pursue the case if they so desire.
Background:
The case was initially filed by Sushil Modi following Rahul Gandhi’s campaign speech in Kolar, Karnataka, back in 2019. During the speech, Rahul Gandhi purportedly remarked-
“Why is it that all the thieves share Modi as their surname?”
This statement prompted Sushil Modi to file a defamation suit against him.
In April 2023, the Patna High Court stayed the proceedings before a trial court in Bihar regarding Gandhi’s alleged remarks. This stay came while hearing a petition from Rahul Gandhi, who argued that his conviction in a similar case by a Gujarat court should preclude another trial for the same offence.
This decision by the High Court was made following a petition from Rahul Gandhi, who argued that since he had already been convicted in a similar case by a Gujarat court, he could not be subjected to trial for the same offense again. Rahul Gandhi had been handed a two-year jail term by a Surat court in a defamation case filed against him by BJP MLA Purnesh Modi. However, in August of the same year, the Supreme Court stayed his conviction, thereby enabling Rahul Gandhi to resume his parliamentary duties.
The stay order granted by the Patna High Court in Sushil Modi’s case was effective until May 15, 2024. Unfortunately, Sushil Modi, who had been battling cancer and receiving treatment at AIIMS for the past month, passed away on May 14.
ALSO READ: Amit Shah Defamation Case | Jharkhand HC Fines Rahul Gandhi Rs 1,000 for Delayed Response
According to the lawyers interviewed, a defamation case does not automatically close upon the death of the complainant. Legal proceedings can continue if the case is pursued by the complainant’s legal representative or a family member. In the absence of anyone to represent the complainant, the court may dismiss the case.
In the Indian legal system, a defamation case is treated as a complaint case, where the state does not act as the prosecution but rather the complainant.
If the plaintiff had lodged a complaint of defamation against themselves, the case could be closed due to non-prosecution in the event of the complainant’s death.
However, if the complainant’s heirs are interested in pursuing the case, they can rely on Explanation 1 of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) to argue that the imputation continues to harm the deceased person’s reputation. They can request substitution and proceed with the case.
Explanation 1 states that statements made can constitute defamation against a deceased person if the imputation would have damaged that person’s reputation had they been alive and is intended to hurt the feelings of their family or close relatives.
In a notable case, Raju vs Chacko (2005), the Kerala High Court held that although remedies were available for the family, the issue of defamation of the deceased had been overlooked and was lacking in clarity. The verdict stated that defamation is actionable both under civil law and criminal law. The term “person” in Section 499 of the IPC typically does not encompass a deceased individual, which is why Explanation 1 was added to the section.
However, seeking compensation for defamation under civil law might not apply to cases where a deceased individual is defamed, as per the principle of “actio personalis moritur cum persona,” meaning “a personal action dies with the person,” implying that personal rights of action cease upon the individual’s demise.
ALSO READ: Sushil Modi Highlights Supreme Court’s Stance on Ninth Schedule Laws
