Rahul Gandhi moves Gujarat high court on his conviction in defamation case

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on Tuesday approached the Gujarat high court to request a stay on his conviction in a criminal defamation case for comments made four years ago on the Modi surname,

“We have filed an application in the Gujarat high court today challenging the Surat court’s recent verdict. I cannot share any more information in this matter for now,” said lawyer Pankaj Champaneri who is appearing for the 52-year-old Congress leader in the matter.

A Surat sessions court on April 20 rejected Rahul Gandhi’s plea to stay his conviction. On March 23, Gandhi was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison for a remark he made ahead of the 2019 national polls about the Modi surname.

The conviction and two-year jail term led to Gandhi’s disqualification from continuing as a member of Parliament. It also renders him unfit to enter either House of Parliament for a period of eight years.

Any elected representative who is sentenced for any offence for a period of two years or more faces immediate disqualification under the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RP Act). One provision of the Act that granted three months’ protection from disqualification was struck down in 2013 as “ultra vires” by the Supreme Court.

In 2019 at a rally in Karnataka, Gandhi asked the crowd, “How come all the thieves have Modi as the common surname?” referring to fugitives Lalit Modi and Nirav Modi, and targeting Prime Minister Narendra Modi. Former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi filed a case against Gandhi in Surat, saying the opposition leader insulted all members of the Modi community.

Additional sessions judge Robin P Mogera, who rejected Gandhi’s request to suspend the conviction, said he should have been more careful in his comments. He cited prima facie evidence and observations of the trial court and said it appeared Gandhi made certain derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi apart from comparing the people with the same surname with thieves. “…the appellant was not an ordinary person and was sitting MP, connected with public life. Any word spoken by appellant would have large impact in mind of common public… Moreover, high standard of morality is expected from a person like appellant and the learned trial court had inflicted sentence which was permissible in law,” said the court in its 27-page verdict.