Express News Service
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice in Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plea against Gujarat HCs refusal to stay his conviction in a criminal defamation case for his alleged remarks on the ‘Modi’ surname.
Laying emphasis on the fact that the court will have to hear the other side, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and PK Mishra however refused to stay his conviction.
Posting the plea for August 4, 2023, the court said that the limited question that it had to decide was regarding the stay of conviction.
Gandhi had approached SC against the verdict passed by a bench of Justice Hemant M Prachchhak. Justice Prachchhak
while upholding the Surat session’s court verdict on July 7 said that the need of the hour was to have “purity in politics” and had termed the two-year jail term as “just, proper and legal.” He had noted that stay on conviction was not the rule but an exception to be reserved for rare cases only and that the present case did not fall into that category.
In the brief hearing that transpired on Friday, Justice BR Gavai at the outset while expressing his difficulty to hear the matter told the counsels regarding the association of his father and brother with the Congress party. Asking the parties to take a call if they wanted him to hear the matter, Justice Gavai said, “Before we studied the matter, I must express some difficulty. My father was associated with Congress not closely. he was not a congress member.. but he was closely associated.. Mr Singhvi you are with Congress for more than 40 years and my brother is still in politics. In this background, you’ll have to take a call.”
Senior Advocates AM Singhvi for Gandhi and Mahesh Jethmalani for Purnesh Modi unanimously told the bench that they had no difficulty. Laying emphasis on the fact that Gandhi had been undergoing conviction for 111 days, Singhvi in an attempt to convince the court to stay his conviction said, “He has suffered 1 parliament session. The elections to Wayanad constituency will be notified anytime.”
Urging to stay HCs ruling, Gandhi in his plea has said, “If the impugned judgement is not stayed, it would lead to “throttling of free speech, free expression, free thought, and free statement”. It would contribute to the “systematic, repetitive emasculation of democratic institutions and the consequent strangulation of democracy which would be gravely detrimental to the political climate and future of India”. If political satire were to be held to be a base motive, then any political speech which is colourfully critical of the government, would become an act of moral turpitude. “This would completely corrode the foundations of democracy.”
Gandhi in his plea has laid emphasis on the fact that the surname Modi in different parts of the country encompasses different communities and sub-communities, which usually have no commonality or uniformity at all and that the three specific persons named in the speech, who alone could have possibly suffered prejudice, have admittedly not sued or complained.
“Instead, the Complainant simply has a ‘Modi’ surname from Gujarat who has neither shown nor been held to be prejudiced or damaged in any specific or personal sense,” the plea also states.
He in his plea has said that the most important ingredient of the offence, an “intention to defame”, has admittedly not been proved in the case on the basis of any evidence.
“Despite this, a political speech in the course of democratic political activity, critical of economic offenders, and also of Shri Narendra Modi, has been held to be an act of moral turpitude inviting the harshest punishment. Such a finding is gravely detrimental to democratic free speech in the midst of a political campaign. It is respectfully submitted that the same will set a disastrous precedent wiping out any form of political dialogue or debate which is remotely critical in any manner,” the plea stated.
Gandhi was convicted in the case and was sentenced to two years in jail by Surat Court. The imprisonment resulted in his disqualification as an MP under the Representation of People Act on March 24, 2023. Although he had approached sessions court seeking a stay on his conviction the same was rejected on April 20. His sentence was however suspended and he was granted bail on the same day to enable him to move appeal against conviction within 30 days.
Justice Prachchhak had noted that Modi surname holders and members of the Modi community were certainly identifiable and well-defined classes, and thus, the seriousness of Gandhi’s offence was compounded by the fact that the defamation alleged was of a large identifiable class, and not just an individual.
“The conviction of the petitioner involves the impairment of the cherished fundamental right to dignity and reputation of a large segment of the population. The public standing of the petitioner and the fact that any utterance of the petitioner attracts large-scale publication gravely impairs and damages the reputation of the complainant and the identifiable class in question,” the HCs order had said.
Declining to stay his conviction, the HC noted that the leader had used PM Narendra Modi’s name in his speech at a poll rally to “add sensation” with an “intention to affect the result of the 2019 Lok Sabha election. The court had said that Representatives of people should be men of clear antecedent. Additionally, the bench had also taken note of other complaints pending against Gandhi which also included the one filed by Vir Savarkar’s grandson in Pune court.
Notably, Purnesh Modi, the complainant who filed a defamation case against Gandhi for his alleged remarks on the ‘Modi’ surname had also filed a caveat in Supreme Court urging the top court to also hear him in case the Congress leader decides to appeal.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday issued a notice in Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plea against Gujarat HCs refusal to stay his conviction in a criminal defamation case for his alleged remarks on the ‘Modi’ surname.
Laying emphasis on the fact that the court will have to hear the other side, a bench of Justices BR Gavai and PK Mishra however refused to stay his conviction.
Posting the plea for August 4, 2023, the court said that the limited question that it had to decide was regarding the stay of conviction. googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
Gandhi had approached SC against the verdict passed by a bench of Justice Hemant M Prachchhak. Justice Prachchhak
while upholding the Surat session’s court verdict on July 7 said that the need of the hour was to have “purity in politics” and had termed the two-year jail term as “just, proper and legal.” He had noted that stay on conviction was not the rule but an exception to be reserved for rare cases only and that the present case did not fall into that category.
In the brief hearing that transpired on Friday, Justice BR Gavai at the outset while expressing his difficulty to hear the matter told the counsels regarding the association of his father and brother with the Congress party. Asking the parties to take a call if they wanted him to hear the matter, Justice Gavai said, “Before we studied the matter, I must express some difficulty. My father was associated with Congress not closely. he was not a congress member.. but he was closely associated.. Mr Singhvi you are with Congress for more than 40 years and my brother is still in politics. In this background, you’ll have to take a call.”
Senior Advocates AM Singhvi for Gandhi and Mahesh Jethmalani for Purnesh Modi unanimously told the bench that they had no difficulty. Laying emphasis on the fact that Gandhi had been undergoing conviction for 111 days, Singhvi in an attempt to convince the court to stay his conviction said, “He has suffered 1 parliament session. The elections to Wayanad constituency will be notified anytime.”
Urging to stay HCs ruling, Gandhi in his plea has said, “If the impugned judgement is not stayed, it would lead to “throttling of free speech, free expression, free thought, and free statement”. It would contribute to the “systematic, repetitive emasculation of democratic institutions and the consequent strangulation of democracy which would be gravely detrimental to the political climate and future of India”. If political satire were to be held to be a base motive, then any political speech which is colourfully critical of the government, would become an act of moral turpitude. “This would completely corrode the foundations of democracy.”
Gandhi in his plea has laid emphasis on the fact that the surname Modi in different parts of the country encompasses different communities and sub-communities, which usually have no commonality or uniformity at all and that the three specific persons named in the speech, who alone could have possibly suffered prejudice, have admittedly not sued or complained.
“Instead, the Complainant simply has a ‘Modi’ surname from Gujarat who has neither shown nor been held to be prejudiced or damaged in any specific or personal sense,” the plea also states.
He in his plea has said that the most important ingredient of the offence, an “intention to defame”, has admittedly not been proved in the case on the basis of any evidence.
“Despite this, a political speech in the course of democratic political activity, critical of economic offenders, and also of Shri Narendra Modi, has been held to be an act of moral turpitude inviting the harshest punishment. Such a finding is gravely detrimental to democratic free speech in the midst of a political campaign. It is respectfully submitted that the same will set a disastrous precedent wiping out any form of political dialogue or debate which is remotely critical in any manner,” the plea stated.
Gandhi was convicted in the case and was sentenced to two years in jail by Surat Court. The imprisonment resulted in his disqualification as an MP under the Representation of People Act on March 24, 2023. Although he had approached sessions court seeking a stay on his conviction the same was rejected on April 20. His sentence was however suspended and he was granted bail on the same day to enable him to move appeal against conviction within 30 days.
Justice Prachchhak had noted that Modi surname holders and members of the Modi community were certainly identifiable and well-defined classes, and thus, the seriousness of Gandhi’s offence was compounded by the fact that the defamation alleged was of a large identifiable class, and not just an individual.
“The conviction of the petitioner involves the impairment of the cherished fundamental right to dignity and reputation of a large segment of the population. The public standing of the petitioner and the fact that any utterance of the petitioner attracts large-scale publication gravely impairs and damages the reputation of the complainant and the identifiable class in question,” the HCs order had said.
Declining to stay his conviction, the HC noted that the leader had used PM Narendra Modi’s name in his speech at a poll rally to “add sensation” with an “intention to affect the result of the 2019 Lok Sabha election. The court had said that Representatives of people should be men of clear antecedent. Additionally, the bench had also taken note of other complaints pending against Gandhi which also included the one filed by Vir Savarkar’s grandson in Pune court.
Notably, Purnesh Modi, the complainant who filed a defamation case against Gandhi for his alleged remarks on the ‘Modi’ surname had also filed a caveat in Supreme Court urging the top court to also hear him in case the Congress leader decides to appeal.
