'Being An MP, Rahul Gandhi Should Have Been More Careful With His Words', Says Surat Court Denying Him Relief In Defamation Case

Dismissing Rahul Gandhi's application seeking a stay on his conviction in the 'Modi Surname' defamation case, the Surat Sessions Court today said that being a Member of Parliament and President of the second largest political party, Gandhi should have been more careful with his words, which would have a large impact on the mind of people.

Surat Sessions Court Judge Robin Mogera also observed that any defamatory words coming from the mouth of Gandhi are sufficient enough to cause mental agony to the aggrieved person and in this case, comparing persons having the surname 'Modi' with thieves, would definitely have caused mental agony and harm the reputation of the complainant, BJP MLA Purnesh Modi.

With this, the Court held that Gandhi had failed in demonstrating that by not staying the conviction and denying an opportunity to contest the election on account of disqualification u/s. 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 irreversible and irrevocable damage is likely to be caused to him.

The Court also underscored that removal or disqualification as a Member of Parliament cannot be termed as irreversible or irreparable loss or damage to Gandhi.

"The Hon'ble Apex Court has held in numbers of pronouncements that the powers accorded under section 389(1) of CrPC to suspend/stay the conviction is required to be exercised with caution and circumspection and if such power is exercised in a casual and mechanical manner, the same would have serious impact on the public perception on the justice delivery systems and such order will shake public confidence in judiciary. Hence, I am of the opinion that the Appellant has not made out any case to suspend the conviction recorded against him," the Court further added as it dismissed Gandhi's plea for a stay on his conviction.

It may be recalled that on March 23, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced Gandhi to two years in jail, following which he was disqualified as MP of Lok Sabha. Challenging the order, he moved the Sessions Court on April 3, which granted him bail (till disposal of his appeal). However, his application for a stay on conviction was rejected today.

In its 27-page order, the Sessions Court rejected the argument put forth by Gandhi's Counsel challenging the maintainability of the complaint, as it observed that Gandhi had made certain derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the general public and further compared the persons having 'Modi' surname with thieves and since the complainant is also having the surname of Modi and he is involved in public life, therefore, such defamatory remarks would have certainly harmed his reputation and caused him pain and agony in society

Further, the Court also rejected the objection taken by Gandhi's counsel with regard to the trial being vitiated due to lack of territorial jurisdiction, as it noted that the said contention was not raised during the time of the trial and therefore, such an objection cannot be accepted at the instant stage.

The Court also noted that the Magistrate had given Gandhi all opportunities to cross-examine witnesses and hence, the contention that the trial court was unfair to him, was incorrect.

"It appears from the record that all opportunities were accorded to Gandhi for cross-examining the witnesses and hence I do not agree with the contentions about him being deprived of a fair trial," the Court remarked

So far as the argument regarding maximum punishment being given to Gandhi, the Sessions court observed that Gandhi was not an ordinary person and was a sitting MP, connected with public life and that any word spoken by him would have a large impact on the mind of the common public.

The Court added high standard of morality is expected from a person like Gandhi and that the trial court had inflicted a sentence, which was permissible in law

Lastly, upon going through the evidence of the case, the Court prima-facie found that the impugned judgment passed by Trial Court was well reasoned and the same was passed after proper evaluation of evidence. In this regard, the Court in its operative part of the order, observed thus:

"Moreover, considering the juxtaposition of law with regard to considering criteria of disqualification as enumerated in Section 8(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1951, I hold, based on the above 26 discussion, that 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."

With this, Gandhi's plea was rejected.