Bench discusses.
Narasimha: Expl 4 doesn't have 'intention'
Singhvi: Yes, that is in Section 499...Witness has admitted that he is not aware of Rahul Gandhi's intention to defame all people with 'Modi' surname. Necessary ingredient of 'intention' not here.
Singhvi: No imputation is set to harm a person's reputation unless it lowers the moral or intellectual character of a person... (reads out Expl 4 to Section 499 of Indian Penal Code)
Singhvi: In that 13 crore, there is no uniformity, homogeneity, identifiability, no boundary line...That is first point. Second is that [Purnesh Modi] himself said that his original surname was not Modi.
Singhvi: In Subramaniam Swamy, I had argued criminal defamation is not unconstitutional. Justice Mishra's bench had accepted...Only on constitutionality, not on individual basis...
Singhvi: Not a single of the persons Gandhi had named during his speech have sued. Interestingly, everybody who is aggrieved in this very 'small' community in 13 crores, only people suing are BJP office-holders. Very strange.
Singhvi: First of all, Purnesh Modi's (complainant) original surname is not Modi...He changed his surname to Modh...
Mahesh Jethmalani (for Modi): Not Modh, Modi.
Singhvi: Yes, whatever it is. (continues reading from Modi's affidavit)
Gavai J: You will have to make out an exceptional case today for a stay on conviction. Normally, ruling follows...
Singhvi: Yes yes. I am not arguing conviction today. (continues)
Singhvi: I have 10 heads. My first head is that this is the first time 30 crore people have held to be an identifiable class. They are amorphous, non-homogenous...communities, castes, & groups with appellation 'Modi' are totally different.
Sr Adv AM Singhvi (for Gandhi): Let me itemise my points...
Gavai J: How much time?
Singhvi: 20-30 mins...Less than 20 mins maybe...
Gavai J: We will give 15 mins to each side.
Narasimha: Be precise and to the point.