'Modi-Thieves' Remark| Live Updates From Gujarat HC In Rahul Gandhi's Plea Seeking Stay On Conviction In Defamation Case

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: In March 2022, due to his behaviour in the court that he doesn't wish to argue case, the Court closed his evidence. Thereafter, he moved the HC, seeking a stay on trial proceedings.

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: In March 2022 he sought a stay on trial, and till February 2023, he was happy with the stay on the case. Meanwhile, no new evidence and no material were submitted. Again in February 2023, he seeks a vacation stay.

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: ...he files an application in 2022 February that please reopen the pendrive, youtube speech. The trial court rejected the same saying that 313 Statements are recorded, ship has sailed. 

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: The alleged statement (of Gandhi) was not proved at all. Two 313 CrPC statements were recorded (in 2021), and when the complainant realised he had not produced the material/speech...

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: Pendrive, Youtube materials were produced later on, but on the day of issuance of summons, what was the material before the Court? Nothing

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: It is hearsay upon hearsay, no pendrive was produced. What was the prosecutable material?

The complainant admitted that he did not have the content of the speech when he moved complaint.

Sr. Adv. Singhvi:

1) The complainant did not say that I was in the audience when the statement was made by Gandhi.

2) Complainant says that he received a WhatsApp message of the impugned statement of Gandhi. But the sender's name not disclosed.

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: The summoning order to Gandhi was issued on 2-5-2019 but on that day he did not have prosecutable evidence/material before him. 

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: This rafale case contention was raised before the Sessions Court but its order did not say anything about it.

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: Supreme Court's order in the Rafale case was the basis of the order, but the same was not put to the Accused (Gandhi) and I (Gandhi) was not confronted with the same.