Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the verdict of a Surat court in a defamation case related to his remarks made during a 2019 election rally in Karnataka. The remarks were concerning the ‘Modi’ surname. This move comes in the wake of the Gujarat High Court’s dismissal of his plea to stay his conviction.
In March this year, a metropolitan magistrate’s court in Surat had convicted Gandhi and sentenced him to two years in prison under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections 499 and 500, which pertain to criminal defamation. The case was filed by BJP Gujarat MLA Purnesh Modi, following Gandhi’s comment at an election rally at Kolar in Karnataka on April 13, 2019. Gandhi had remarked, “How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname?” This comment led to the defamation case.
Following his conviction, Gandhi was disqualified as a Member of Parliament. He sought to challenge the conviction after the Supreme Court’s summer vacation period concluded. However, both the Surat district court and the Gujarat High Court refused to grant any reprieve or quash the conviction, while also censuring Gandhi for his remarks.
In response to Gandhi’s move to the Supreme Court, Purnesh Modi filed a caveat in the Supreme Court. He insisted that his arguments should also be heard when Gandhi or any concerned party challenges the decision of the Gujarat High Court. The caveat stressed that the court should not make any decision without granting Modi an opportunity to present his side.
The Gujarat High Court had dismissed Gandhi’s appeal, stating,
“In the democratic form of government, it is now the need of the hour to have purity in politics.”
The court also noted that the representatives of the people should be “men of clear antecedent” and that a stay on conviction is not a rule, but an exception resorted to only in rare cases. The court found that there was no reasonable ground to stay his conviction.
The court further observed,
“Rahul Gandhi is seeking a stay on conviction on absolutely non-existent grounds.”
It added that refusal to stay the conviction would not in any way result in injustice to the applicant. The court emphasized that the refusal to stay the conviction “would not in any way result in injustice to the applicant.”
Gandhi’s legal team had been waiting for the conclusion of the Supreme Court’s summer vacation period to challenge the conviction. The case has now moved to the Supreme Court, marking the latest development in this ongoing legal battle.