During a hearing for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plea to stay his conviction in a criminal defamation case for his comment “all thieves have Modi surname” at an election rally, Justice Hemant Prachchhak, a single-judge of the Gujarat High Court, emphasised that since Gandhi is an elected representative of the people, he should exercise caution while making statements.
The judge orally commented, “In reality, it is Gandhi’s greater RESPONSIBILITY towards the GENERAL public, as he represents them. He should ensure that his statements are made within reasonable boundaries and limits.”
CONGRESS LEADER RAHUL GANDHI has argued in court that he has not committed a serious or heinous offence, such as MURDER or any offence involving MORAL TURPITUDE. His defense was presented by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who argued that Gandhi’s case is bailable and not against society at large. Singhvi also questioned the complainant Purnesh Modi’s right to file the complaint in the first place, stating that the law does not permit such complaints from anyone outside of the individuals named in Gandhi’s speech. “It is not even their case that I named MR. PURNESH MODI,” SINGHVI SAID, arguing that the appeal must succeed on this basis.
Background
Earlier on April 20, a sessions court in Surat rejected Rahul Gandhi’s plea to suspend his conviction by the Magistrate court. The sessions court issued a detailed order, stating that GANDHI’S DISQUALIFICATION would not result in an irreparable or irreversible loss to him, and denied him interim relief. The former Member of Parliament from Wayanad, Kerala, who has since been disqualified, was convicted by a Surat Magistrate court on March 23 for his comment “all thieves have Modi surname,” which he made at a 2019 election rally in Karnataka’s Kolar.
During a speech, Rahul Gandhi made a connection between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and fugitives such as Nirav Modi and Lalit Modi, stating, “Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi. How come all the thieves have ‘MODI’ AS A COMMON SURNAME?”
PURNESH MODi, a former Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) from the BJP, objected to the speech, claiming that Gandhi had humiliated and defamed individuals with the Modi surname.
THE MAGISTRATE COURT IN SURAT agreed with MODI’S argument, stating that Gandhi’s speech was an INTENTIONAL INSULT to people with the Modi surname. As a result, Gandhi was convicted on March 23 for criminal defamation and sentenced to two years in prison. He subsequently filed a plea to suspend his conviction, which was rejected by the sessions court in Surat on April 20. Gandhi is now appealing his conviction in the Gujarat High Court.
In a 168-page judgement, MAGISTRATE JUDGE HADIRASH VARMA ruled that since Rahul Gandhi is a Member of Parliament (MP), his statements would have a greater impact and thus he should have shown restraint. The judge held that “the accused had taken the reference of the surname of the current PRIME MINISTER SHRI NARENDRA MODI, to satisfy his POLITICAL greed and insulted and defamed 13 crore people living in the whole of India having the surname ‘Modi'”.
The Sessions judge refused to stay the Magistrate court’s conviction, leading to Gandhi’s present plea before the Gujarat High Court to suspend his conviction.
Arguments today
During today’s hearing, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represents Rahul Gandhi, argued that the offence committed by Gandhi is neither of a serious nature nor of moral turpitude, which are two grounds for denying suspension of conviction.
Singhvi also raised questions about the complainant’s locus standi.
Singhvi vehemently argued that only the individuals specifically named by Gandhi in his speech have the right to file a complaint of criminal defamation against him. He pointed out that none of the people mentioned in the speech filed a complaint, making it clear that the law only allows the aggrieved person to lodge a complaint. Singhvi further stressed that it is not possible to circumvent this requirement to suit the interests of a non-identifiable group as in the present case. He questioned the maintainability of the complaint filed by someone from the so-called 13 crore group, as it would mean that anyone can come and file a criminal defamation case.
Singhvi also challenged the validity of the evidence presented to justify the criminal defamation proceedings. He argued that, in case of a speech, there are three possible scenarios where evidence can be provided – the complainant was present during the speech, a reporter attended the event and filed a story, or another person who attended the event can authenticate the speech. According to Singhvi, none of the witnesses present in this case fall into any of the three categories mentioned above, and thus, no evidence was produced in accordance with the Evidence Act or Information Technology Act.
The court asked for clarification regarding the deficiencies in the trial proceedings that were pointed out by Singhvi. In response, Amin suggested that those details could be examined during the final hearing of the appeal. On the other hand, Senior Advocate Nirupam Nanavati, who was representing the complainant Purnesh Modi, argued that Gandhi’s plea was not maintainable because it was unclear whether it was a revision plea or a petition to quash the case under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). Nanavati added that Gandhi’s petition was not maintainable under the law as it was filed without clear reference to a specific provision.
The bench pointed out to MR. NANAVATI that this is more of a revision application, to which he responded by saying that the court should have asked for TRANSLATED COPIES OF THE WITNESSES, which are in Gujarati. In response, the bench gave MR. NANAVATI UNTIL TUESDAY (MAY 2) to file his affidavit, but made it clear that they have to complete the proceedings since sufficient time has already been invested in this matter. The court then set the date for consideration of the case as May 2.
Written by-Vaishnavi goel, 6th semester,, Ballb, Punjab school of law, Punjabi university, Patiala
0 Comments