Supreme Court Stays Rahul Gandhi’s Conviction in Criminal Defamation Case; Set to Be Reinstated as MP

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the conviction of Congress leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Rahul Gandhi in the criminal defamation case, paving the way for him to be reinstated as an MP.

With the Supreme Court passing a stay of his conviction, Rahul Gandhi's disqualification as MP also now remains in abeyance.

The Congress camp is jubilant with the stay order, as it will mean that Rahul Gandhi can apply to be reinstated as an MP, allowing him to participate in the discussions related to the no- confidence motion against the Modi government in Parliament.

A three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar was hearing Gandhi’s plea challenging the Gujarat High Court for its refusal to stay his conviction in a criminal defamation case over a remark passed by him, which resulted in his disqualification from the Lok Sabha.

Rahul Gandhi, on Wednesday, had maintained that he was not guilty and requested the top court to stay his two-year conviction, which would enable him to participate in the ongoing session of the Lok Sabha and later sessions.

It was while speaking at a rally in Karnataka's Kolar in April 2019, that Rahul Gandhi had ostensibly taken a dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, by saying, "How come all the thieves have Modi as the common surname?".

Passing its order, the Supreme Court observed that the sentence for an offence under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, which was attracted by Rahul Gandhi in the case, is punishable by a maximum of two years of sentence or fine or both.

The bench also observed that the trial judge, in the order passed by him, has awarded the maximum sentence of two years. It was pointed out that except the admonition to the petitioner by the Supreme Court in a contempt proceeding, no other reason has been granted by the trial judge while imposing the maximum sentence of two years.

It should be noted that it is only on account of the maximum sentence of two years imposed on Rahul Gandhi that the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act came into play. Were the sentence had been a day lesser, it would not have then attarcted the provisions. Especially so, when the “offence was non-compoundable, bailable and cognizable, the least which was expected from the learned trial judge was to give reasons for imposing the maximum punishment,” the bench pointed out.

However, the bench ruled that the remarks by Rahul Gandhi were not in "good taste" and pointed out that a person in public life ought to have been more careful while making public speeches.

“Considering the wide ramifications of the Section 8(3) affecting not only the right of the petitioner but also the rights of the electorate which elected him in the constituency and also the fact that no reason has been assigned by the trial court to award the maximum sentence, the bench said that it is staying the conviction,” the bench said, while refraining from making any observations on the merits of the matter considering the pendency of the appeal

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Gandhi, submitted at the outset that the original surname of the complainant BJP MLA Purnesh Modi is not 'Modi’, a fact which the complainant had himself admitted.

He underlined then fact that of the 13 crore members said to be in the Modi community, only a handful of BJP members have filed the complaints alleging criminal defamation. He argued further that the class of persons sharing Modi surname is not an identifiable class within the meaning of Section 499/500 IPC who can file a defamation suit.

Singhvi asserted that it is an extreme rarity for the Court to award the maximum sentence of two years for criminal defamation.

Earlier in April, Rahul Gandhi had also told a sessions court in Surat his conviction by a magistrate's court in the 2019 defamation case was erroneous, was patently perverse, and that he was sentenced in a manner so as to attract disqualification as a Member of Parliament. He had said his harsh treatment by the trial court, was "overwhelmingly influenced" by his status as an MP.

Also Read: Haryana Govt Bulldozes 250 Shanties Of Illegal Migrants Allegedly Involved In The Violence

Also Watch: