Gandhi has asked for a stay of proceedings following his conviction by a Surat Magistrate court for saying that “all thieves have the Modi surname” in 2019.
Judge Gita Gopi of the Gujarat High Court withdrew on Wednesday from hearing the appeal filed by Congressman Rahul Gandhi, who was found guilty of criminal defamation and sought a stay of that judgment.
Gandhi’s appeal was brought up in front of Justice Gopi, a single judge.
Not before me, she responded, and advised the attorney to speak with the High Court’s acting Chief Justice, who could appoint a different bench to hear the appeal.
On April 20, a sessions court in Surat rejected his request for the Magistrate court to suspend his conviction.
Gandhi was denied interim relief after the sessions court determined in a thorough order that his disqualification would not amount to an irreparable or irreversible loss for him.
The now-disqualified Wayanad, Kerala, lawmaker was found guilty on March 23 by a magistrate court for his contentious remark, “All thieves have Modi surname.”
Gandhi had connected Prime Minister Narendra Modi with wanted criminals like Nirav Modi and Lalit Modi during a political campaign in Kolar, Karnataka, in 2019.
He’d stated,
Lalit Modi, Nirav Modi, and Narendra Modi. Why is ‘Modi’ such a common surname among thieves?
A former BJP member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA), Purnesh Modi, objected to the speech, saying Gandhi had humiliated and defamed people with the surname Modi.
The Surat magistrate court agreed with Modi’s claim that Gandhi had purposefully insulted people with the surname “Modi” in his speech.
Gandhi is a Member of Parliament (MP), so whatever he says will have a greater impact, the judge wrote in his 168-page decision. He should have therefore used restraint.
In order to satiate his political avarice, the accused had appropriated the surname of the current prime minister, Shri Narendra Modi, and insulted and defamed 13 crore people living throughout India who had the surname “Modi,” the judge ruled.
The sessions judge’s refusal to maintain the status quo resulted in the current High Court petition.
.Written By- Tushar Vashisth students of 3rd year BBA LLB at Chandigarh University
