Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Purnesh Modi, the complainant who filed a defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in Gujarat has filed a caveat in Supreme Court. The complainant is urging the court to hear him, in case Gandhi decides to file an appeal against the Gujarat HCs verdict.
Congress leader was denied relief by the Gujarat HC on July 7. A bench of Justice Hemant M 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.
Stressing that it is now the need of the hour to have purity in politics and that Representatives of the people should be men of clear antecedence, the bench also took note of other complaints pending against Gandhi which also included the one filed by Vir Savarkar’s grandson in Pune court.
ALSO READ | Congress to move SC after HC’s refusal to stay Rahul’s conviction in defamation case
Gandhi was convicted by the Gujarat Surat city court on March 23 in a criminal defamation case filed against him over his alleged remarks on the ‘Modi’ surname and was granted a sentence of two years. The imprisonment resulted in his disqualification as an MP under the Representation of People Act on March 24, 2023. Gandhi had also approached sessions court seeking for a stay on his conviction which was rejected on April 20. 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.
NEW DELHI: Purnesh Modi, the complainant who filed a defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in Gujarat has filed a caveat in Supreme Court. The complainant is urging the court to hear him, in case Gandhi decides to file an appeal against the Gujarat HCs verdict.
Congress leader was denied relief by the Gujarat HC on July 7. A bench of Justice Hemant M 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. googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
Stressing that it is now the need of the hour to have purity in politics and that Representatives of the people should be men of clear antecedence, the bench also took note of other complaints pending against Gandhi which also included the one filed by Vir Savarkar’s grandson in Pune court.
ALSO READ | Congress to move SC after HC’s refusal to stay Rahul’s conviction in defamation case
Gandhi was convicted by the Gujarat Surat city court on March 23 in a criminal defamation case filed against him over his alleged remarks on the ‘Modi’ surname and was granted a sentence of two years. The imprisonment resulted in his disqualification as an MP under the Representation of People Act on March 24, 2023. Gandhi had also approached sessions court seeking for a stay on his conviction which was rejected on April 20. 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.
