Supreme Court Issues Notice On Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi's Plea To Stay Conviction; Posts For Hearing On August 4

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra was hearing Gandhi’s plea challenging the Gujarat High Court's refusal to stay his conviction in the criminal defamation case.

As soon as the matter started, Justice Gavai said that his father was associated with Congress and his brother is still associated with the party and asked if there was any objection to him hearing the matter:

"Before we start with the matter, I must express some difficulties on my part to both sides. My father was associated with the Indian National Congress, though he was not a Congress member. He was associated with Congress for more than 40 years. He was a member of both the Parliament and the state legislature with Congress' support. My brother is still in politics and associated with Congress. In this background, you have to take a call on whether I should take up this matter. In that Victoria Gowri matter also, I said I had a political background and been a judge for more than 20 years, but it has never affected my [judgement]. Please take a call."

Senior Advocate Dr.Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gandhi, and Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the complainant, unanimously expressed that they had no objection. "That's a fair comment to make," Singhvi commended the judge. 

Singhvi requested an earlier date of hearing considering the fact that Gandhi has lost over a hundred days as a Parliament member, including one entire session and a part of the ongoing Monsoon Session which is set to end on August 11, and that bye-elections for the Wayanad constituency could be notified soon. Jethmalani requested ten days' time for filing a reply.

"What is the need for reply in such a matter?", Justice Gavai said pointing out that the High Court has passed an order running into over hundred pages. "This is peculiar to the Gujarat High Court," the judge remarked. "Other high courts also," Singhvi pointed out.

In response to the bench's question as to why a reply needed to be filed, Jethmalani argued that he wanted to put on record certain propositions of law.

Though Singhvi requested for considering the prayer for interim suspension of Gandhi's conviction in view of the time the former legislator had already lost as a Member of Parliament representing the Wayanad constituency, the bench expressed its reluctance, saying that it could not grant interim relief without first hearing the other side.

'Corrodes Foundations Of Democracy' : 10 Grounds Raised By Rahul Gandhi In Supreme Court For Stay Of Conviction In Defamation Case

At the end of the hearing, Singhvi once again expressed his appreciation towards Justice Gavai for making the disclosure regarding his 'political background' and allowing the counsel to decide whether they would like to be heard by him. Justice Gavai responded by saying:

"It's my duty. Everyone should know. Tomorrow there shouldn't be a problem. Coincidentally, my father (RS Gavai) has been with both your father (Laxmi Mall Singhvi) and his father (Ram Jethmalani) in Parliament. They were great friends. My father was good friends with your father, as well as his father. In an election matter, I even had the pleasure of appearing with [Ram Jethmalani] as his junior."

Background

Congress leader and former MP Rahul Gandhi has been embroiled in a controversy over his ‘why all thieves share the Modi surname’ remark dating back to a political rally at Karnataka’s Kolar in 2019. Accusing Gandhi of defaming everyone with a ‘Modi’ surname, Bharatiya Janata Party MLA and former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 over this alleged remark.

One month after the Gujarat High Court vacated a stay on the trial in the criminal defamation case against the former legislator in February, a local court in Surat district of Gujarat handed him a conviction and a two years’ jail sentence in March. Although the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate HH Varma suspended his sentence and granted him bail in the case to move an appeal within 30 days, his conviction was not suspended, and therefore, on the very next day, the former MP representing Kerala’s Wayanad constituency was disqualified as a Lok Sabha member in terms of Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution read with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The 1951 Act provides that a person would be disqualified from their membership of either House of the Parliament or the state legislative assembly or council if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years after their release.

After his conviction and subsequent disqualification from the Lok Sabha, Gandhi moved an appeal in a city sessions court in Surat challenging his conviction, along with two applications – one for suspension of sentence, and another for suspension of conviction. If his second application were allowed, his membership of the Lok Sabha would be restored. However, in another setback for the former MP, the sessions court dismissed Rahul Gandhi’s application seeking a stay on his conviction in the criminal defamation case, although he was granted bail till the court disposed of his appeal.

Against the ruling of the sessions court, Gandhi filed a criminal revision application. Not only did a bench of Justice Hemant Prachchhak refuse to grant him interim relief, but also ultimately dismissed his petition earlier this month. While rejecting Gandhi’s plea, the single-judge bench observed that the case concerned a large identifiable class, i.e., the ‘Modi’ community, and not just an individual. The court also said that as a senior leader of the oldest political party in India, Gandhi was vested with a duty to ensure that the dignity and reputation of a large number of persons or any identifiable class was not ‘jeopardised’ due to his political activities or utterances.

The high court further said that Gandhi made a false statement to affect the poll results and used Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s name only to add sensation to his speech. Besides this, the high court acknowledged the existence of 10 additional defamation complaints against Gandhi, including one filed by the grandnephew of Vinayak Savarkar in a Pune court over allegedly defamatory comments made against Savarkar in a speech delivered at Cambridge University.

Finally, after exhausting all his remedies, the Congress leader moved the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court’s decision to decline his plea for a stay on his conviction. The former MP has, inter alia, maintained that he had no mala fide intention nor any intent to defame the complainant.

Case Details

Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8644 of 2023

Click Here To Read/Download Order