Only PM can file plaint for personal allegations: Lawyer

Surat: Arguing during the hearing of a criminal defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, his lawyer stated that majority of the allegations by Gandhi were against Narendra Modi personally and that only Modi can complain.
Advocate Kirit Panwala, representing Gandhi, argued that Purnesh Modi, BJP MLA from Surat West has no right legally to complain. Panwala started his argument on Tuesday in local court which has kept the next hearing on March 13.
The case of criminal defamation was filed by Surat West MLA Purnesh Modi in April 2019 under Indian Penal Code sections 499 and 500. In his complaint, Modi said that Gandhi made a statement in political rally at Kolar in Karnataka on April 13, 2019 in the runup to general election, “How come all the thieves have Modi as the common surname?”, which he claimed was defaming the Modi community at large.
The court is hearing the final arguments in the criminal defamation case filed against the Congress Lok Sabha MP from Wayanad in Kerala. Trial in the four-year-old case resumed after the Gujarat High Court on February 21 vacated its interim stay on proceedings imposed in March last year.
In the start of his argument Panwala stated, “To polarize votes from one community the complaint was made in 2019 during the parliament election. There was no reason to extend the case after the goal was achieved.”
“In Purnesh Modi's complaint, 90 per cent of the allegations mentioned are against Narendra Modi, for which he can complain. He has not complained, and Purnesh Modi has no right to complain in law,” Panwala argued.
“In the entire complaint there is only one allegation that is not against Narendra Modi is: “How come all the thieves have Modi as surname?” For this too, Purnesh Modi has no right to complain as the allegations are not against any caste or community,” Panwala stated. “And even if the allegations are against those with Modi surnames then there is no association of those holding Modi surname.”
“Rahul Gandhi is a resident of Delhi, which is outside the jurisdiction of this court. For such an accused, the law requires the witnesses to be examined, and the matter enquired. The court is then required to give the reason on whether to issue the summons or not. No such thing was followed,” he said.