Rahul Gandhi moves Supreme Court to seek stay on defamation case conviction
Former Wayanad MP an Congress leader Rahul Gandhi moves Supreme Court, days after the Gujarat High Court refused to stay his conviction in the criminal defamation case over 'Modi surname'. The conviction in the case led to his disqualification as Lok Sabha MP.
FollowCongress leader Rahul Gandhi on Saturday filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court's refusal to stay his conviction in the criminal defamation case over 'Modi surname'. The conviction in the case led to his disqualification as Lok Sabha MP.
The petition of the Congress leader, regarding his conviction in a criminal defamation case over the 'Modi Thieves' remark, was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on July 7. The case arose from a comment made by Gandhi during the 2019 Lok Sabha campaign, where he questioned the common surname among individuals like Lalit Modi and Nirav Modi, asking, 'Why do all thieves have the same surname?'
The High Court observed that the Congress leader deliberately used the name of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in his speech during a political rally to create sensation and influence the outcome of the 2019 Lok Sabha election.
The court stated, "The accused did not stop there but imputed that 'saare choro ke naam Modi hi kyu hai (why do all thieves have the Modi surname in common)'. Thus, the present case would certainly fall within the category of seriousness of the offence."
Additionally, the court noted that the Congress leader was facing multiple criminal cases across the country, including one filed by the grandson of VD Savarkar, emphasizing the importance of integrity in politics.
The High Court upheld the Surat Sessions Court's decision to reject Gandhi's plea for a stay on his conviction. As a result, his conviction led to his disqualification as a member of the Lok Sabha. Justice Hemant Prachchhak, who dismissed the plea, considered the trial court's sentence of a two-year jail term to be fair, just, and legal. The court emphasized that the grant of a stay on a conviction is not the norm but an exception reserved for rare cases, and determined that this case did not fall into that exceptional category.
The judgment highlighted that Gandhi's attempt to seek a stay on the conviction was based on non-existent grounds. It emphasized that the principle of law dictates that staying a conviction is an exception rather than a rule, applied only in extraordinary circumstances.
The court also noted that disqualification applies not only to Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), and pointed out the existence of multiple pending criminal cases against the applicant.
