New Delhi, April 20.
A Surat court on Thursday refused to stay Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in a defamation case over his “all Modis are thieves” remark. The two-year conviction has led to his immediate disqualification from the Lok Sabha.
Gandhi was convicted by chief judicial magistrate, Surat, on March 23, 2023. He went up in revision to the Surat additional sessions judge. He can now appeal to the Gujarat High Court against this refusal to stay his conviction.
Unless Gandhi gets a stay on his disqualification, he cannot contest elections and will end up not only being jailed but will also spend at least eight years in political wilderness. Gandhi has also been evicted from his official accommodation after he lost his member of parliament status.
“An application preferred by Appellant Rahul Gandhi under sections 389 and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for staying the conviction imposed by the judgment and order dated 23/3/2023 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat… is hereby dismissed,” an order delivered by Robin P. Mogera, Additional Sessions Judge Surat, said.
“… counsel for the appellant has failed in demonstrating that by not staying the conviction and denying an opportunity to contest the election on account of disqualification under section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, an irreversible and irrevocable damage is likely to be caused to the Appellant.”
So far as imposing of maximum punishment is concerned, the court said, it would be worthwhile to observe that Gandhi was not an ordinary person and was a sitting MP, connected with public life.
“Any word spoken by the Appellant would have large impact in mind of common public. The alleged speech given by Appellant on 13/4/2019 was during election campaign. Moreover, high standard of morality is expected from a person like Appellant and the Trial Court had inflicted sentence, which was permissible in law,” the judge said.
If such a representative of people or a public servant is allowed to behave in such fashion, it would also not be in the public interest and the court cannot absolve such a conduct at this stage in exercising discretion under Section 389, CrPC, the court said.
Though discretion is vested with the court, it has to be exercised rarely and with circumspection only in some circumstances which justify exercise of such power, it said.
“The background of facts as stated do not justify exercise of such discretion as it cannot be said to be an exceptional case. The submissions made referring to the irreversible situation being created causing damage to the career or prejudice to the applicant could be said to be a consequence of the act amounting to the offence which every accused is bound to suffer at the conclusion of the trial.”
Looking at the prima facie evidence and observations made by the Trial Court in impugned judgment it transpires that the Appellant 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 noted.
The complainant also carries the Modi surname, the court said. Moreover, the complainant is an ex-minister (belonging to the BJP) involved in public life and such defamatory remarks would have certainly harmed his reputation and caused him pain and agony in society, the judge said.
He also rejected pleas on the territorial jurisdiction of the Surat court to hear the case, an objection regarding the presumption of truth of the evidence presented against Gandhi or that he did not get a fair trial.
Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema and advocate K.C. Panwala appeared on Gandhi’s behalf in the case while advocates Harshit S. Tolia and Ketan P. Reshamwala appeared for Purnesh Modi. Public prosecutor Nayan Sukhadwala appeared for Gujarat.
