A Delhi Court has dismissed a complaint that sought criminal action against a Congress leader for his 2023 remark comparing Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ideologies of the BJP and RSS to a “poisonous snake,” ruling no offence was made out.
A Delhi Court rejected a complaint seeking criminal action against a Congress leader for a remark made in 2023, where he compared Prime Minister Narendra Modi and the ideologies of the BJP and RSS to a “poisonous snake.”
The Court determined that the complaint did not meet the necessary legal criteria for charges related to defamation or hate speech.
It concluded that the statement was a form of political criticism protected under the Constitution.
The case was presented before Judicial Magistrate Preeti Rajoria of Tis Hazari Court, who had previously listened to arguments from the complainant, Ravinder Gupta, a practicing Advocate and long-term RSS member.
Also Read: Delhi Judge Holds 2:25 AM Hearing at Home, Sends Money Laundering Accused to ED Custody
Gupta claimed he was personally affected by the leader’s statement made on April 27, 2023, during a political event in Naregal, Gadag, Karnataka.
The accused had remarked,
“Mr. Modi is like a poisonous snake. If you try to test whether it is poisonous or not, you will die.”
Gupta asserted that the remark was inflammatory, defamatory, and insulting to both the BJP and RSS, causing him personal distress as a devoted RSS swayamsewak for five decades.
He further argued that the leader’s subsequent clarification stating that he was referring to the BJP and RSS rather than Modi personally only intensified his grievance against the organization with which he was affiliated.
After issuing a legal notice on May 3, 2023, seeking a public apology and receiving no response, Gupta approached the police. He filed complaints with Subzi Mandi police station and senior Delhi Police officials, but no FIR was registered.
Subsequently, he filed a private complaint requesting directions to lodge an FIR for defamation, promoting enmity, and outraging religious feelings.
The Court had previously dismissed his application under Section 156(3) of the CrPC and proceeded with pre-summoning evidence. During this phase, Gupta examined himself and presented nine documents. In its comprehensive ruling, the Court first tackled the defamation allegations.
Referencing Section 499 of the IPC, it noted that defamation requires an imputation against a specific individual, made with the intent or knowledge that it would damage that person’s reputation.
The Court found that Gupta’s claim did not fulfill these requirements. It highlighted that cognizance of defamation under Section 500 of the IPC can only be initiated if the complaint is filed by the aggrieved party; in this instance, that party would be the Prime Minister, according to Section 199(1) of the CrPC.
An individual associated with an organization cannot claim defamation merely because a political remark targets that organization.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Shatrughna Prasad Sinha v. Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi (1996), the Court noted that Gupta failed to demonstrate any direct harm to his reputation.
The complaint merely claimed he was hurt as an RSS swayamsewak a broad assertion that does not qualify as defamation.
Regarding the allegations of hate speech, the Court found insufficient grounds to invoke Sections 153A, 153B, or 295A of the IPC, all of which deal with promoting animosity between groups, making statements detrimental to national unity, and insulting religious beliefs.
The judge emphasized that the accused’s statement was aimed at political ideologies, not at any community identified by religion, caste, or ethnicity.
Also Read: ‘Constitution Not Permanent’: CJI BR Gavai Echoes Ambedkar’s Vision for Continuous Reform
The Court remarked, stating that harsh or offensive criticism cannot be penalized unless it incites hatred or violence,
“It appears as a political criticism,”
The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan v. Union of India (2014), which necessitates a direct link between speech and public disorder for it to be classified as hate speech.
Finding no prima facie case under any alleged provision, the Court dismissed the complaint under Section 203 of the CrPC and ordered the matter be archived.