Modi Surname case: Rahul Gandhi to challenge Surat Court's decision in High Court

Apr 20, 2023

SURAT: A court in Gujarat's Surat city on Thursday rejected Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's application for a stay on his conviction in a criminal defamation case over his "Modi surname" remark.

The court of additional sessions judge R P Mogera rejected Gandhi's plea for stay on conviction which, if allowed, could have paved the way for his reinstatement as the Member of Parliament (MP).

While the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) hailed the Surat court's decision as a "victory" of the judiciary and the people, the Congress said it will continue to avail all options still available under the law.

Gandhi's lawyer Kirit Panwala said the sessions court's order will be challenged in Gujarat High Court.

On April 3, Gandhi's lawyer filed two applications along with his main appeal against the lower court's order sentencing him to two years in jail, one for bail and another for stay on conviction pending his appeal.

While dismissing Gandhi's application, the court said his counsel failed to demonstrate that an "irreversible and irrevocable damage" is likely to be caused to him if he is denied the opportunity to contest election under section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 on account of his conviction not being stayed.

A metropolitan magistrate court here on March 23 sentenced Gandhi to two years in jail after convicting him under sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code for criminal defamation in the case filed by BJP MLA Purnesh Modi.

A day later, 52-year-old Gandhi, who was elected as the Lok Sabha member from Wayanad in Kerala in 2019, was disqualified under provisions of the Representation of the People Act.

While granting him bail on April 3, the court had issued notices to complainant Purnesh Modi as well as the state government for hearing on the Congress leader's plea for a stay on his conviction.

After hearing both the sides, the court on April 13 reserved its order on Gandhi's plea for stay on conviction which was rejected on Thursday.

Gandhi's lawyer Panwala said the sessions court has set May 20 as the date to begin hearing on his appeal against the lower court's March 23 order.

Meanwhile, Gandhi will continue to remain out on bail till the disposal of his main appeal as per the court's April 3 order, he said.

Purnesh Modi's lawyer Harshil Tolia said the court considered all aspects before rejecting Gandhi's plea.

The case was registered against Gandhi following the BJP MLA's complaint over his remarks, "How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname?" made during an election rally at Kolar in Karnataka on April 13, 2019.

"The court has taken into consideration all the legal and factual points while delivering its order. It considered arguments of both the sides and held that our client Purnesh Modi, who belongs to the Modi community, is competent to file a criminal defamation case on Gandhi's remark," Tolia said.

In its order, the court said the power accorded under section 389 (1) of the CrPC to suspend/stay the conviction is required to be exercised "with caution and circumspection" as observed by the Supreme Court in a number of pronouncements.

"If such power is exercised in a casual and mechanical manner, the same would have serious impact on the public perception on the justice delivery systems and such order will shake public confidence in judiciary," it said.

The court observed that the appellant has not made out any case to suspend the conviction recorded against him.

Hitting out at the Congress, BJP national spokesperson Sambit Patra said, "The court's decision is a slap on the arrogance of the Gandhi family, especially Rahul Gandhi." It also proves that law is equal for everyone, he said.

Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh in a tweet said, "We will continue to avail all options still available to us under the law. Dr A M Singhvi will brief the media on Rahul Gandhi's appeal at 4 pm."

Responding to questions on Gandhi's case, Congress leader Bhupinder Singh Hooda said it is a "politically motivated" case. "We have full faith in the judiciary," he added.

Earlier, arguing for Gandhi's plea for a stay on his conviction, his lawyer had told the court that the trial was "not fair" and there was no need for maximum punishment in the case.

In his submission, Gandhi had said if the March 23 judgment of the trial court is not suspended and stayed, it will cause irreparable damage to his reputation.

He said the excessive sentence is contrary to the law on the subject and unwarranted in the present case which has overriding political overtones.

Gandhi had termed his conviction as "harsh", "erroneous" and "patently perverse" and said the trial court treated him harshly after being overwhelmingly influenced by his status as an MP.

"The appellant has been treated harshly at the stage of determination of sentence taking into account his position as a Member of Parliament, hence the far-reaching implications would have been in the knowledge of the trial court," he said.

The Congress leader had said he was sentenced in a manner so as to attract the order of disqualification because the trial court was well aware of his status as a parliamentarian.

The by-election held in his Lok Sabha seat due to his disqualification if his conviction is not stayed cannot be undone even if the court subsequently acquits him. Such an election will also cause irreparable loss to the state exchequer, he said.

Opposing his plea, MLA Purnesh Modi had told the court that Gandhi is a repeat offender with several cases of criminal defamation against him going on in different courts across the country.

He said the way Gandhi had come to file his appeal showed "extraordinary arrogance" and "a very dirty display of childish arrogance and an immature act of bringing pressure upon the court." The MLA had also accused Gandhi of making "unfair and contemptuous comments" against the court through his aides, associates, leaders of his party and others at his behest following his sentencing.

"The accused is in the habit of making such defamatory and irresponsible statements which may either defame others or may hurt the feelings of others, in the name of freedom of speech and political criticism and dissent," the complainant had stated in his affidavit.