Supreme Court to hear Rahul Gandhi’s plea TODAY against Gujarat High Court’s order refusing to stay his conviction in criminal ddefamation case over ‘why all thieves share Modi surname’ remark.
Rahul Gandhi approached the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court’s order dismissing his application to stay the conviction in the criminal case. The conviction in the case led to his disqualification as a Member of Parliament.Gandhi has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court’s order dismissing his application to stay the conviction in the criminal case. The conviction in the case led to his disqualification as a Member of Parliament.
The criminal defamation case was filed over a remark made by Gandhi during the 2019 Lok Sabha campaign. Referring to persons like Lalit Modi, Nirav Modi, Gandhi had asked “why all thieves have the same surname?”.
On March 23, 2023, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat convicted and sentenced Gandhi to 2 years imprisonment, following which he was disqualified as a member of Lok Sabha. However, his sentence was suspended, and he was also granted bail on the same day to enable him to move an appeal against his conviction within 30 days.
On April 3, Rahul Gandhi approached the Surat Sessions Court assailing his conviction and further seeking a stay on his conviction, which was rejected on April 20. However, Surat Sessions Court on April 3 granted bail to Gandhi till the disposal of his appeal.
Dismissing Gandhi’s revision plea, the Gujarat High Court observed that the case against Gandhi concerns a large identifiable class (Modi Community) and not just an individual.
FOLLOW LIVE UPDATES HERE
Supreme Court stays Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in the criminal defamation case over the ‘Modi surname’ remark.
The conviction in the case had led to his disqualification as MP.
Singhvi: Thank you for an expeditious disposal. Only one word may be added – ‘alleged’ remarks. Because we are challenging the remarks themselves.
Gavai J (adds): ‘Alleged’ remarks.
Gavai J: Taking into consideration these & that no reason has been given by trial judge for imposing max sentence, order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication…
Gavai J: Ramifications are wide. Not only petitioners’ right to continue in public life affected, but also that of electorate’s who have elected him.
Gavai J: Maybe if these observations came before petitioner made these utterances, he would have been more careful before making such remarks which are alleged to be defamatory…
Gavai J: No doubt that utterances not in good taste, person in public life expected to exercise caution while making public speeches. As observed by this court while accepting his affidavit in contempt petition, he ought to have been more careful…
Gavai J: Though appellate & high court have spent voluminous pages rejecting stay on conviction, these aspects are not considered in their orders…
Gavai J: Particularly when offence is non-cognisable, bailable, compoundable, trial judge is expected to give reasons for imposing maximum sentence.
Gavai J: It is to be noted only on account of this maximum sentence, provisions of RP Act have come into play. Had sentence been a day lesser, provisions would not have been attracted.
Gavai J: Insofar as conviction of sentence is concerned, we have considered certain factors – the contents of an offence punishable u/S 498 & 499 IPC is max 2 yrs or fine or both. Trial judge has awarded maximum sentence of 2 yrs. Except the admonition by Supreme Court, no other reason has been granted for this by trial judge…
