The Surat court today rejected Rahul Gandi’s plea for a stay on his conviction by a Magistrate court in a criminal defamation case against him.
Gandhi was convicted by a Magistrate court in Surat on March 23 for his remark “All thieves have Modi surname” which he made at an election rally in Kolar in 2019.
Additional Sessions Judge Robin Mogera refused to stay the conviction.
Therefore, this would mean that Gandhi would continue to stand disqualified from Lok Sabha.
Before his conviction, Gandhi was the MP representing Kerala’s Wayanad constituency.
Background
Rahul Gandhi was convicted by a magistrate court on March 23 on a complaint filed by BJP leader Purnesh Mod, who claimed that the Congress leader through his remark defamed the entire Modi community.
Gandhi stated in his speech that “Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi. How come all the thieves have ‘Modi’ as a common surname?”
Purnesh Modi filed a defamation suit against Gandhi claiming that by this statement, Gandhi defamed all the persons with ‘Modi’ surname. Magistrate Hadirash Varma convicted Gandhi for criminal defamation and sentenced him to 2 years in jail.
The judge stated that, through his statement, he insulted all persons with the Modi surname for his political interest.
As a result of his conviction, Gandhi was disqualified as a Lok Sabha MP.
Then, Gandhi moved the Surat sessions court challenging his conviction, through a legal team of Senior Advocate RS Cheema and Advocates Kirit Panwala & Tarannum Cheema.
Previously, On April 13, Judge Mogera heard the submissions of both parties on the point of whether to stay the conviction or not.
On that day, advocate Cheema, appearing for Gandhi, argued that his client’s speech needs to be analyzed contextually to ascertain whether there was any intent on the part of the speaker to defame the group of persons with the surname Modi.
Cheema underlined that “My speech isn’t defamatory unless drawn out of context, looked under a magnifying glass to create or to make it defamatory.” He claimed in the instant litigation, that he was nothing but an outcome of speaking up critically against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, it was contended.
Cheema said that “Basically, litigation inflicted upon me for daring to be vociferously critical about our PM. Trial was harsh and unfair to me.”
The senior advocate also questioned the complainant’s logic in claiming that 13 crore people with Modi surname got defamed when the total population of Gujaratis was only 6 crores.
Cheema stated that “It is claimed there are 13 crore Modis across India. I find it mind-boggling that a populace of that figure would be categorized as a ‘collection of persons’. Gujarat’s population was nearly 6 crores in 2011.”
Importantly, Cheema highlighted how the trial court pronounced Gandhi guilty and imposed the maximum sentence for the offense immediately after the conviction.
Further, he pointed out that “At 11:51 AM, my client is pronounced guilty and within half n hour he is handed over the harshest and maximum punishment. The judge has said that you are an MP and I want to send a message to society.”
He added that “I am sure the court was very well aware that had it punished me even one day less, I wouldn’t have been disqualified.”
Arguments On Complaints
Advocate Harshit Tolia representing Purnesh Modi, argued that losing one’s job was no ground for the court to exercise its extraordinary and discretionary powers to suspend the sentence.
Tolia urged the court to consider the gravity of offense as it was committed by a sitting Member of Parliament.
In his submissions, Tolia emphasized on the “arrogance” of Gandhi and in fact that he hasn’t apologized over his statements yet.
It was vehemently contended that “Gandhi’s conduct deserves no sympathy and his sentence shouldn’t be suspended. He isn’t saying a sorry. This is his arrogance he can’t say a sorry. He is such a tall leader. Such a big personality, he can’t say a sorry but only shows arrogance. He isn’t entitled to any relief at this stage.”
Therefore, Tolia also highlighted how Gandhi brought up with him other Congress leaders while filing his appeal.
It was submitted that “He is bringing legislators to the Court. They are showing the public that yes we are legislators and we are supporting our leader. Legislators must understand that they are first the servants of the public then their party and then their leader. If you want to support your leader and stand in solidarity with him then better resign from your post and then support him everywhere.”
Further, Tolia stated that part of the speech against ‘Modi surname’ was what hurt his client.
Tolia stated that “In his speech, he spoke of PM Modi but didn’t stop there and went beyond it. He has said, ‘Saare choron ka naam Modi Modi Modi hi kyu hai? Dhoondo aur bhi Modi milenge’. My client is hurt by this part of the speech thus the complaint.”
Also, Tolia justified that the maximum punishment imposed on Gandhi by the trial court,
“First is he being conscious as he was addressing the rally. He addressed PM Modi and was so childish that he wasn’t aware that referring to Modi surname would mean all the Modis?”
Furthermore, he also said that an MP does not deserve any special treatment.
Tolia asked “Suppose one doctor is convicted, the medical council will act against him. If a lawyer commits misconduct his Sanad will go. Similarly, if an MP is convicted, he will be disqualified. What is so special or exceptional in this case.”
Countering the submissions, Cheema clarified that his client can’t be pressurized to apologise and the same cannot be a pre-condition for hearing of the appeal.
