No interim support for Rahul Gandhi in defamation case: As Gujarat HC reserves order, from ‘motormouth’ to ‘regulation breaker’, what was acknowledged in court docket docket

On May 2, Gujarat High Court reserved an order throughout the defamation case, refused to current any interim support to the Congress chief and disqualified MP Rahul Gandhi. During the listening to, Gandhi’s please throughout the matter related to his “Modi surname” remark, Justice Hemant Prachchhak acknowledged it was throughout the curiosity and well being of the case that the matter be decided lastly.

J Prachchhak passes order: It is throughout the curiosity and well being of the case, that the matter be decided lastly and no interim security be granted at this stage. Hence, the matter is saved for closing judgment publish summer season holidays. #RahulGandhi #GujaratHighCourt #modisurname…

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023

The court docket docket did not give interim security to the disqualified MP and saved the matter for closing judgment post-summer holidays. Before the listening to commenced, Justice Prachchhak had made it clear he would use his journey time to place in writing the judgment and cross it after he resumes office post-summer journey. The judgment will come solely after June 4.

Notably, the earlier Congress MP had sought an interim carry on his conviction and sentence awarded by the Gujarat Court on March 23 beneath Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code for jail defamation. The judgment was handed throughout the case filed by BJP chief Purnesh Modi over the remarks handed by Gandhi in April 2019 in opposition to people with the Modi surname.

Earlier, the matter was to be heard by Justice Gita Gopi, nevertheless she rescued herself from listening to on April 26. The case was then transferred to Justice Prachchhak.

Senior Advocate Nirupam Nanavati appeared for Punesh Modi, who was the complainant. He instructed the court docket docket that the court docket docket ought to consider the seriousness of the offence and its have an effect on on the sufferer and society.

Senior Advocate Nirupam Nanavati for complainant Purnesh Modi makes submissions.

Modi: The Court has to ponder the seriousness of the offence and what’s its have an effect on on the sufferer and the society at huge.
One who’s convicted and ordered to endure sentence of two years or…

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023

Nanavati extra well-known that the disqualification bought right here from the judgment as per the regulation. Neither court docket docket nor Parliament disqualified Gandhi. He was disqualified from the publish of MP on account of the regulation states that if a lawmaker will get convicted and sentenced to 2 years, he or she will probably be robotically disqualified from the house.

Nanavati: Court has not disqualified you the Parliament has disqualified you. Neither the complainant has disqualified you so you’ll be able to’t argue that you simply’re struggling an irreversible loss. That is the regulation made by the Parliament itself.
So the seriousness of the offence needn’t…

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023

Nanavati recognized that throughout the Lily Thomas vs Union of India matter, the Supreme Court had struck down half 8(4) of the Representation of People Act that protected convicted lawmakers from disqualification. The then-Congress authorities launched an ordinance in opposition to the judgment, nevertheless Rahul Gandhi himself tore it. Nanavati acknowledged, “He made that mistake of tearing that Ordinance, had he not, he could have been saved now.”

Nanavati offers: In 2013, when his private social gathering decided to usher in an Ordinance referring to the Lily Thomas Judgment, for safeguarding convicted lawmakers, he himself had torn the acknowledged doc.
He did that mistake of tearing that Ordinance, had he not, he could have been saved now.…

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023

Calling Gandhi a “motormouth”, Nanavati recognized that he was a repeat offender. Despite a warning from the Supreme Court in “Chowkidar Chor hai” remarks, he has not stopped making allegedly defamatory suggestions.

Nanavati reads from orders of Supreme Court throughout the contempt of court docket docket case, whereby Gandhi was pulled up for attributing “Chowkidar hi Chor hai” comment to the Top Court.
So now this phrase of warning saying “beware of your utterances, be careful you are a senior leader” however he…

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023

He well-known how Rahul Gandhi repeatedly used derogatory remarks in opposition to Veer Savarkar in his statements. He cited Gandhi’s assertion when he acknowledged, “My name is Gandhi, and I am not Savarkar and won’t apologise.” Notably, Congress’s allies have requested him to not assault Savarkar in his statements.

Nanavati: Even after his conviction he hasn’t stopped from making suggestions.

Cites a newspaper report. Reads, “He has said, My name is Gandhi and I am not Savarkar and won’t apologise.”

He has acknowledged that, throughout the info article, that they (BJP) has given me the proper reward ever, so…

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023

Public Prosecutor Mitesh Amin, who was representing the Gujarat Government, acknowledged, “Duty of the lawmakers is to uphold the law, but the present appellant himself is breaking the laws. This makes the case more serious. The legislator’s function is to legislate, but he isn’t doing that.”

Now Public Prosecutor Mitesh Amin, who represents the Gujarat Government makes submissions.

Amin: Duty of the lawmakers is to uphold the regulation nevertheless the present appellant himself is breaking the authorized tips. This makes the case further extreme. The function of the legislator is to legislate…

— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi requested the court docket docket to supply interim support, nevertheless the court docket docket refused.