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

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: Anyone from the so-called community of 13 crore people can not come and file a complaint against me, except the ones who were named by me in the speech. In fact, I did not name Complainant (Purnesh Modi).

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: If I say that XYZ community is bad, anyone belonging to that community can't come and file the case against me, it is the law.

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: The complainant says in his complaint that I am filing the complaint because I belong to the Modi community and it says that in Gandhi's utterances, 13 crore people of the community are hurt.

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: When the complainant entered the court with his complainant, there was no case as per Section 499 IPC.

The persons whom I named (3 persons) did not file a case against me.

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: Under 499 IPC, you (Complainant) must be the aggrieved person, which is not the case. Defamation cases are bilateral cases, defamation cases are intended to operate in-personam.

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: ...but he goes on to challenge my appeal for a stay on conviction before the Sessions Court. What was the complainant's concern with my disqualification?

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: In criminal matters, a complainant has to be aggrieved for redressal. After the conviction, at the most, he can say that he must be punished. But in this case, under his nose, my sentence was stayed, and he did not challenge the same...

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: I am convicted of the maximum sentence, but the magistrate stays sentences, sessions court, in appeal, makes the order absolute, thereby granting bail till the conclusion of the appeal. Before the sessions court, the state counsel appeared but did not argue.

Sr. Adv. Singhvi: In the media, there were several suggestions that why the appeal is not preferred. I don't deal with supersonic appeals.

In my case, after the order, the disqualification notification was issued in 24 hours.

Sr. Adv. Singhvi cites the case concerning an Odisha MLA, wherein the Court said if the conviction is not stayed, it will have consequences not for the MLA but will burden the public exchequer as a by-election will have to be conducted.