Rahul Gandhi Arrogant, Said He Will Never Apologize As He Wasn't A Savarkar : Complainant Tells Supreme Court Opposing Stay Of Conviction In Defamation Case

BJP MLA Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, the complainant who filed the criminal defamation case against Rahul Gandhi over his "why all thieves have Modi surname" remark, has filed an affidavit before the Supreme Court opposing the stay of his conviction in the case.

He stated that stay of conviction is granted in the "rarest of rare cases for exceptional reasons" and Gandhi's case doesn’t fall into that category. He stated that the order of conviction passed by the trial court is based on unimpeachable evidence on record. He asserted that Gandhi defamed all the persons having the surname “Modi” and in particular Modh Vanik caste of the state of Gujarat.

He submitted that both these categories are “identifiable collections of persons” within the meaning of explanation 2 of section 499, IPC.  He submitted that Gandhi's statement was made out of "personal hatred toward the elected PM of the country".

"Such was his hate that he cast defamatory aspersions on persons bearing the same surname as the PM...the statement was made maliciously towards a blameless class of persons and therefore he deserves no sympathy on the question of sentence", he said in the affidavit filed through Advocate PS Sudheer.

He pointed out that the petitioner was the president of a national-level political party. Even if he wanted to use slanderous language in political discourse, there’s no reason to brand an entire class of people as thieves just because they bear the same surname as PM

Referring to Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, he contended that if the legislature wanted that disqualification would only be triggered if there’s moral turpitude, it would’ve made it explicitly clear. He submitted that offence of defamation under section 500, IPC is itself an offence of moral turpitude.

He also pointed out that Gandhi is out on bail in the National Herald case.  Moreover, he’s facing a case for defamation of Savarkar. He further contended that the petitioner has not shown a repentant attitude even at the time of sentencing by the trial court. Instead, he proclaimed "he was not a Savarkar but a Gandhi".

"Subsequent to the order of conviction and sentence, the petitioner said he would never apologise in this case as he was not a "Savarkar" but a "Gandhi".

The complainant has also referred to the past instance of Supreme Court pulling up Gandhi over wrongful attribution of "chowkidhar chor" remark, following which he had to tender unconditional apology to the Court in a contempt proceeding.

He submitted that the petitioner’s "arrogant entitlement, insensitivity to a community, and contempt for law" should disentitle him for any relief.

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.

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.

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.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PK Mishra issued notice on Gandhi's plea on July 21 and posted the matter for hearing on August 4.

Case Details-Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr.

Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8644 of 2023