Modi Surname Defamation Case: Rahul Gandhi moves Supreme Court against Gujarat HC’s refusal to stay his conviction

Disqualified Congress MP Rahul Gandhi has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court’s July 7 decision refusing to stay his conviction in the Modi Surname Defamation Case. The Gujarat High Court said that there were no reasonable grounds to stay his conviction, meaning that Rahul Gandhi would remain disqualified as an MP.

“(Gandhi) is seeking a stay on conviction on absolutely non-existent grounds. Stay on conviction is not a rule. As many as 10 cases are pending against (Gandhi). It is needed to have purity in politics…A complaint has been filed against (Gandhi) by the grandson of Veer Savarkar in Pune Court after Gandhi used terms against Veer Savarkar at Cambridge…Refusal to stay conviction would not in any way result in injustice to the applicant. There are no reasonable grounds to stay conviction. The conviction is just, proper and legal,” the court said while pronouncing the order.

Notably, BJP leader Purnesh Modi, the complainant in the Modi Surname Defamation Case, has filed a caveat before the Supreme Court in anticipation of Rahul Gandhi’s appeal against the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to stay his conviction. The caveat was filed on July 7, after the Gujarat High Court refused to stay Rahul Gandhi’s conviction. A caveat is pleading to inform the court that the opposite party may file a case before the court, so the court is to hear both sides before passing any order if a caveat is filed.

Rahul Gandhi’s Contentions Before Supreme Court

The Disqualified Congress MP has urged various grounds before the Supreme Court while challenging the Gujarat High Court’s decision, as restoration of Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha membership is reportedly subject to a stay on his conviction and the issuance of notification from the Lok Sabha Secretariat for the same.

Rahul Gandhi has argued that the offence of defamation is attracted u/s 499/500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) only with respect to a defined group. He alleges that ‘Modi’ is an undefined amorphous group, and thus, not falling in any category of association or collection of persons as stipulated under the provision.

Rahul Gandhi further argues that his remarks were not against the complainant, BJP leader Purnesh Modi, and thus cannot be held to be defamed. Furthermore, the Congress leader  argues that Purnesh Modi has not shown that his reputation was damaged through Rahul Gandhi’s remarks. The Congress leader further argues that his remarks were made during a political speech while campaigning for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections. Therefore, there was no intention to defame the complainant and thus, the ‘mens rea’ for the offence is lacking.

Furthermore, Rahul Gandhi argues that the Gujarat High Court erred in holding that his remarks as an act of ‘moral turpitude.’ He argues that the court’s finding is detrimental to free speech and would set a disastrous precedent of wiping out political dialogue.

“It appears that the accused is a Member of Parliament possessing high position in the society and having bounden duty not to scandalize any person from the society and the defence of fair comment is neither proved nor believed by the Courts below. The revisioner has breached the modesty, even if his version is accepted and further revisioner owes a duty to each individual and the society in general not to influence the election on the basis of false fact. Thus, under the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence committed by the accused falls in the category of moral turpitude also,” the Gujarat High Court said in its 125-page judgement.

The Disqualified Congress leader further argues that irreparable injury has been caused to him and his constituency due to his conviction and subsequent disqualification. He argues that the absence of a stay on his conviction precludes him from contesting future elections.

Surat Sessions Court Refuses to Stay Rahul Gandhi’s Conviction

On April 20, the Surat Sessions Court dismissed Rahul Gandhi’s application seeking a stay on conviction in the Modi Surname Defamation Case for his remark “Why all thieves share the Modi surname” during his political campaign for the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

The former Congress MP challenged his conviction before the Surat Sessions Court along with two applications accompanied by his appeal, one for suspension of his sentence and the other for suspension of his conviction. Thereafter, the Additional Sessions Judge at Surat, Robin P Mogera, suspended the sentence imposed against Rahul Gandhi on April 3 and granted him bail pending a hearing of his appeal.

Rahul Gandhi’s counsel argued that the complainant BJP leader Purnesh Modi cannot be termed as an ‘aggrieved person’ and hence was not authorized to file the complaint. Furthermore, the counsel argued the concept of the expression ‘Modi’ being an association of persons becomes entirely unacceptable. Rahul Gandhi’s counsel also submitted that the complaint was filed with a political motive.

The complainant’s counsel argued that Rahul Gandhi had the knowledge that his remarks would harm the reputation of ‘Modi’ surname holders and such statements were made only with a view to earn political gain.

The court rejected Rahul Gandhi’s counsel’s arguments and held that the complainant’s complaint was maintainable as he is an “ex-minister and involved in public life and such defamatory remarks would have certainly harmed his reputation and caused him pain and agony in society.”

Furthermore, the court noted, “So far as imposing of maximum punishment is concerned, it would be worthwhile to observe that 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 Ld. Trial Court had inflicted sentence, which was permissible in law. Further, it appears from record that all opportunities were accorded to Appellant for cross-examining the witnesses and hence I do not agree with the contentions of Ld. Senior Advocate Mr. Cheema about appellant being deprived of fair trial,” the court added.

The court said, “It is not disputed fact that the Appellant was the Member of Parliament and President of the second largest political party and looking to such stature of Appellant he should have been more careful with his words, which would have large impact on the mind of people. Any defamatory words coming from the mouth of Appellant are sufficient enough to cause mental agony to aggrieved person.”

“In this case, by uttering defamatory words viz. comparing persons having surname ‘Modi’ with thieves would definitely have caused mental agony and harm the reputation of complainant, who is socially active and dealing in public,” the court added.

The court held, “removal or disqualification as Member of Parliament cannot be termed as irreversible or irreparable loss or damage to the Appellant, as envisaged by Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in Naranbhai Bhikhabhai Kachhadia’s case.”

Therefore, the court dismissed Rahul Gandhi’s application seeking a stay on conviction. The Court concluded, “An application Exh.5 – preferred by Appellant Mr. Rahul Gandhi u/s.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 Ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat in Criminal Case No.18712/2019 is hereby dismissed.”