BJP MLA Purnesh Modi, the complainant in the ‘Modi Surname Defamation Case’, has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court opposing Disqualified Congress MP Rahul Gandhi’s appeal seeking a stay on his conviction. The complainant submitted that a stay on conviction is granted in the “rarest of rare cases for exceptional reasons” and Rahul Gandhi’s case does not fall into that category.
The complainant contended that the trial court’s order convicting Gandhi was based on unimpeachable evidence on record. The complainant further argues that the former Congress MP defamed all persons having a ‘Modi’ surname, particularly Gujarat’s Modh Vanik caste. He further submitted that Gandhi’s comments were made out of “personal hatred towards the elected PM of the country.”
“Such was his hate that he cast defamatory aspersions on persons bearing the same surname as the PM…the statement was made maliciously towards a blameless class of persons and therefore he deserves no sympathy on the question of sentence,” the affidavit read.
The complainant further informs the court that the accused, Rahul Gandhi, is out on bail in the National Herald case and is also facing another case for defaming a freedom fighter, Veer Savarkar. Furthermore, the complainant submits that the accused did not show a repentant attitude even when he was being sentenced by the trial court. The complainant informs the court that the former Congress MP instead proclaimed that “he was not Savarkar but Gandhi.”
“Subsequent to the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner said he would never apologise in this case as he was not a “Savarkar” but a “Gandhi”,” the affidavit read.
The complainant further referred to an earlier instance, where the Supreme Court pulled up Rahul Gandhi for his wrongful attribution of the “chowkidar chor” remark. The complainant further informed the court that the former Congress MP thereafter tendered an unconditional apology to the court. The complainant argues that Rahul Gandhi’s “arrogant entitlement, insensitivity to a community, and contempt for law” must disentitle him for relief.
The complainant further informed the court that the accused was the president of a national political party. The complainant further argued that if Gandhi wished to use such slanderous language in a political discourse, there was no reason to brand the entire ‘Modi’ community as thieves just because they bear the same surname as Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The complainant argues that if the legislature intended that Section 8(3) of the Representation of People (RP) Act would be triggered only if there’s moral turpitude, then it would have made it explicitly clear. Furthermore, the complainant submits that the offence of criminal defamation u/s 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) is itself an act of moral turpitude.
The Supreme Court’s Division Bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, is hearing Rahul Gandhi’s challenge to Gujarat High Court’s July 7 order refusing to stay his conviction in the ‘Modi Surname Defamation Case.’ The Gujarat High Court had said that there were no reasonable grounds to stay his conviction, meaning that Rahul Gandhi would remain disqualified as an MP.
Notably, the complainant, Purnesh Modi, also filed a caveat before the court in anticipation of Rahul Gandhi’s appeal against the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to stay his conviction on July 7. 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.
Gujarat High Court’s Refusal to Stay Conviction
On July 7, the Gujarat High Court refused to stay Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in the Modi Surname Defamation Case. The court said that there are 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.
It is pertinent to note that the restoration of Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha membership was subject to suspension of his conviction and issuance of notification from the Lok Sabha Secretariat for the same.
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.”
