The Supreme Court August 4 (Friday), stayed Congress chief and Former Wayanad MP Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in a 2019 prison defamation case over his Modi surname comment. The apex courtroom additionally restored his standing as a member of Parliament.
#BREAKING Supreme Court stays Congress chief Rahul Gandhi’s conviction within the prison defamation case over the ‘Modi surname’ comment.
The conviction within the case had led to his disqualification as MP.
#RahulGandhi pic.twitter.com/iGJyoodGWQ
— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) August 4, 2023
While announcing the judgement, the 3-judge bench noticed that the utterances of Rahul Gandhi weren’t in “good taste” and mentioned that an individual in public life should have been extra cautious whereas making public speeches. However, questioned why the utmost sentence was given, which led to his disqualification.
‘Modi’ surname comment | Supreme Court says it desires to know why most sentence was given. Had the choose given a sentence of 1 yr and 11 months, then he (Rahul Gandhi) wouldn’t have been disqualified, observes Supreme Court.
Mahesh Jethmalani says Supreme Court had earlier…
— ANI (@ANI) August 4, 2023
A 3-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar was listening to Gandhi’s plea difficult the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to remain his conviction in a prison defamation case over ‘Modi thieves’ comment.
Purnesh Modi, a former minister within the Gujarat authorities, had filed a prison defamation case in 2019 in opposition to Gandhi over his “How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname?” comment made throughout an election rally at Kolar in Karnataka on April 13, 2019. Rahul Gandhi was convicted and sentenced to 2 years in jail in a defamation case by a Surat courtroom on March 23. The conviction led to his subsequent disqualification from Lok Sabha.
Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani showing for complainant Purnesh Modi learn out Rahul Gandhi’s 2019 speech and argued that your entire speech spanned over 50 minutes and there was a plethora of proof and clipping of the speech connected to the Election Commission of India’s report.
Jethmalani mentioned that Rahul Gandhi’s intention was to defame each individual with the surname Modi simply because it’s the similar as that of a Prime Minister, including that the Congress senior chief “defamed an entire class out of malice.”
Jethmalani reads out Gandhi’s speech: His intention was to defame each individual with the surname Modi simply because it’s the similar as that of a Prime Minister. You have defamed a whole class out of malice.
Caste half is secondary. So there have been two defamations.…
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) August 4, 2023
Meanwhile, Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Congress chief Rahul Gandhi on the Supreme Court, mentioned, “No one was named by Rahul Gandhi in his speech.”
The trial courtroom cited 13 instances, however the place are the convictions? Where are the prison anecdotes, he informed the apex Court.
He added, ‘Rahul Gandhi has lost two Parliament sessions. He has been silenced for 8 years. For no other defamation cases, 2 years of suspension were pronounced’
Singhvi additionally questions, Is it Rahul’s final likelihood to get acquittal?
Responding to the arguments, SC mentioned the conviction can also be affecting the constituency.
“Had the judgment of the SC may come earlier, the petitioner would have been more careful and expressed a degree of restraint over the alleged defamatory remarks. We are of the considered view that the ramifications of the ruling are wide and affect the rights of his constituency’s electorate. Considering the aforesaid and particularly that no reasons have been given by the trial judge for a maximum sentence which has incurred disqualification, the order of conviction needs to be stayed pendency of proceedings. Pendency of appeal would not come in the way of the appellate court in deciding an appeal in accordance with the law. Trial proceedings are to be conducted expeditiously,” mentioned the apex courtroom.
It added that it desires to know why the utmost sentence was given. Had the choose given a sentence of 1 yr and 11 months, then he (Rahul Gandhi) wouldn’t have been disqualified, noticed Supreme Court.
Rahul Gandhi refused to apologise
On Wednesday, the 2nd of August, Congress chief and Former Wayanad MP Rahul Gandhi filed a rejoinder affidavit within the Supreme Court in relation to his enchantment in opposition to his disqualification from the parliament. In the affidavit, he reiterated that he won’t apologise for his Modi surname comment that led to his conviction by the decrease courtroom and subsequent disqualification from Lok Sabha. He submitted that if he needed to apologise for his remarks, he would have achieved it earlier.
In the 63-page affidavit, Gandhi claimed that he has not dedicated any critical offence and there’s no defamation case made out in opposition to him. He has argued that prison defamation will not be a critical offence involving ethical turpitude. The affidavit additional states that defamation is just one of many 22 offences underneath the IPC that pulls solely easy imprisonment and never rigorous imprisonment.
Rahul Gandhi has requested the Supreme Court to remain his two-year suspension within the defamation case in order that he can attend the continuing parliament session and the periods in future.
The case
The case pertains to 2019 prison defamation case in opposition to Congress chief Rahul Gandhi. In his election speech in Koral, Karnataka, Rahul Gandhi had mocked a whole group by saying, “Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi… how come they all have Modi as a common surname? How come all thieves have Modi as a common surname?”
After the courtroom trial, on the twenty third of March, 2023, a magisterial courtroom in Gujarat convicted Rahul Gandhi in connection along with his Modi surname comment. The courtroom sentenced him to
two-year imprisonment which subsequently result in his disqualification as a Lok Sabha MP.
According to the Representation of People’s Act (RPA), a conviction of two or extra years immediatedly results in disqualification from the Parliament or state assemblies.
Later on 20 April, the periods courtroom rejected his plea for a keep on his conviction. Subsequently, the Gandhi scion moved to the Gujarat High Court which cited his stature as an MP and mentioned he ought to have been extra cautious in his feedback.
After listening to the matter, on the seventh of July, the excessive courtroom affirmed the decrease courts’ order and rejected his revision utility searching for a keep on his conviction.