Surat court refuses to stay conviction, Rahul to move HC

A Surat court on Thursday rejected Rahul Gandhi's plea for a stay on his conviction in a criminal defamation case over his 'Modi surname' remark, holding that the Congress leader should have been 'more careful with his words' since he was a member of Parliament and the then president of the country's second largest political party.

Denying the disqualified MP relief that could have paved the way for his reinstatement in the Lok Sabha, additional sessions judge R P Mogera observed that a 'high standard of morality' is expected from a person like Gandhi, adding that the trial court had imposed a sentence which was permissible in law.

It also observed that the Congress leader's removal or disqualification as MP under section 8(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 'cannot be termed as irreversible or irreparable loss or damage'.

Gandhi, who will continue to remain out on bail, stood disqualified from contesting Lok Sabha and Assembly elections for a period of eight years unless a higher court stays his conviction.

Dismissing Gandhi's application against the Surat trial court order on March 23, the sessions 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,' the court said in its 27-page order that triggered a fresh slugfest between the Congress and the BJP ahead of the 2024 Lok Sabha polls.

The Congress termed as 'erroneous and unsustainable' the court order and said the judge seems to be 'over-shadowed' by the high office of the prime minister.

Congress senior spokesperson Abhishek Singhvi said they would be moving the high court 'very shortly' as the judgement is 'fallacious' and is contrary to all basic elementary principles of law.

Sources said that Singhvi, himself a noted lawyer, is likely to appear before the Gujarat High Court.

"There is a legal error in the judgement. We respect all courts and we have the High Court and Supreme Court. We have several grounds to challenge the judgement. We will move the high court in the very near future," Singhvi told reporters in Delhi.

The Bharatiya Janata Party hailed the court order as a 'victory' of the judiciary and the people.

Hitting out at the Congress, BJP national spokesperson Sambit Patra said the court's decision is 'a blow' to the arrogance of the Gandhi family, 'especially Rahul Gandhi'.

"It's a slap on Gandhi family's arrogance...Gandhi family had thought that they can get away after abusing backward classes. But that did not happen," Patra claimed.

The court's decision proves that law is equal for everyone, he said at a press conference in Delhi.

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

He said the Congress leader will continue to remain out on bail till the disposal of his main appeal as per the session court's April 3 order.

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

A metropolitan magistrate court on March 23 sentenced Gandhi to two years in jail after convicting him 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 the provisions of the Representation of the People Act.

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.

'Any defamatory words coming from the mouth of appellant are sufficient enough to cause mental agony to an aggrieved person,' the sessions court said.

By uttering defamatory words and comparing persons having 'Modi' surname with thieves 'would definitely have caused mental agony and harm the reputation of complainant Purnesh Modi, who is socially active and dealing in public', it said.

'It is not a disputed fact that the appellant was the Member of Parliament and president of the second largest political party, and looking at such stature of appellant, he should have been more careful with his words, which would have a large impact on the mind of people,' the court stated.

The court said the counsel for the appellant had failed to demonstrate that the denial of an opportunity to him to contest the election by not staying his conviction will cause him 'irreversible and irrevocable damage'.

It also rejected the argument of Gandhi's counsel that there cannot be defamation against a community as such.

"Community as such may not have a reputation, but the reputation will only be of individual members. When the defamatory matter affects each and every member of an ascertainable class or group, each of them or all of them could set the law in motion."

Looking at the prima facie evidence and observations made by the trial court, it transpires Gandhi had made certain derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in general public and further compared the persons having 'Modi' surname with thieves, the court observed.

Moreover, the complainant is ex-minister and involved in public life and such defamatory remarks would have certainly harmed his reputation and caused him pain and agony in society, the court added.