The legal and political realms have converged to challenge Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, following a controversial remark he made during the 2019 elections. A Surat court has deemed his comment, “how come all of these thieves have Modi in their names?”, defamatory and sentenced him to two years in prison, disqualifying him from the Lok Sabha. The verdict raises legal questions: does the statement defame a specific individual or a group sharing the ‘Modi’ surname? Precedent suggests that, for defamation, the targeted group must be identifiable, and the individual initiating proceedings must prove personal harm from the alleged statement. It is hard to argue that all individuals with the ‘Modi’ surname, rather than just the three mentioned, including PM Narendra Modi, can be considered aggrieved parties. Moreover, it remains unclear if the complainant, BJP MLA Purnesh Modi, demonstrated personal harm or injury due to the alleged comment. The maximum sentence raises concerns as well. Laws establish maximum sentences so courts can use discretion to assign proportional punishments. It is debatable whether such a general remark constitutes defamation and, if so, whether it merits the maximum sentence. The judgment’s validity will be determined on appeal, but the political consequences for Gandhi, including disqualification from the House and electoral contests, could be long-lasting unless he secures a stay on the conviction rather than just a suspension of the sentence. The criminalization of defamation in India is ironic in a country grappling with criminalized politics, corruption, and hate speech, and its potential to derail a prominent leader’s career is concerning. Modern democracies should not consider defamation a criminal offense. The 2016 Supreme Court ruling upholding criminal defamation did not sufficiently consider its chilling effect on free speech, political opposition, and dissent. Opposition parties expressing concern over Gandhi’s verdict should include abolishing criminal defamation in their agendas.