In a recent hearing, the Supreme Court granted Rahul Gandhi a stay on his conviction in a criminal defamation case stemming from his “Modi surname” comment, enabling him to both revive his Lok Sabha membership and participate in forthcoming national elections.
Justice BR Gavai highlighted the far-reaching ramifications of Gandhi’s conviction, noting it would impact on the rights of voters who elected him. Additionally, Justice Gavai observed that no reason was provided by trial judge for imposing maximum sentence; hence decision was taken to stay conviction until adjudication process is complete.
Purnesh Modi, a former minister in Gujarat’s government, filed the criminal defamation case against Rahul Gandhi after remarks made at an election rally in Karnataka on April 13th 2019 were perceived by him to have violated purnesh Modi’s reputation and cause her harm. Rahul Gandhi’s lawyer Abhishek Manu Singhvi found it peculiar that no individuals named in his speech had come forward with defamation suits against Rahul. Singhvi stated this could be due to diversity within communities making identification of one group difficult.
Mahesh Jethmalani, Purnesh Modi’s attorney, urged that the court reconsider the evidence before changing her sentence as her appeal before the sessions court was still ongoing.
Justice BR Gavai also raised the issue of Wayanad constituency being unrepresented due to petitioner’s conviction, emphasizing its impact on electors rights and stressing that trial judge should provide reasons for awarding maximum sentence.
Rahul Gandhi in an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court reaffirmed his refusal to apologize for his remarks on “Modi surname,” asserting his innocence and criticizing how criminal proceedings and Representation of People Act pressure him into making amends for something that did not occur. Gandhi stood firm that his innocence could not be proven and stated that any conviction would be unsustainable.
Rahul Gandhi will now be free to continue his political career and participate in forthcoming elections; however, final adjudication of his case remains pending with the court considering all arguments and evidence before rendering its decision.
