Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court's recent refusal to stay his conviction in the 2019 criminal defamation case over his Modi surname remark.

On July 7, a single judge bench of Justice Hemant Prachchhak had tabled the verdict in the 'Modi' surname remark case upholding Gandhi's conviction.

Notably, the same day, expecting an appeal from Gandhi against the Gujarat High Court's refusal to stay his conviction, the complainant, Purnesh Modi had filed a caveat in the Supreme Court of India.

In view of Gandhi's conduct and other pending cases against him, Justice Prachchhak opined that the conviction in the present case would not do any injustice to him.

"Absolute non-existent grounds...Well settled law that stay on conviction is not a rule but rather an exception...Moreover, as many as ten criminal cases are pending against the applicant. It is now the need of the hour to have purity in politics...After the complaint in the present case, another complaint was filed at Pune by the grandson of Veer Savarkar against the applicant for using repremational terms against Savarkar...In the backdrop of the said circumstances, refusal to stay the conviction would not in any way result in any injustice to the applicant," held the judge. 

Defamation case and Gandhi's conviction:

In 2019, Gandhi in a poll rally at Kolar in Karnataka, said, “How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname”. Thereafter, a defamation case was filed against Gandhi by Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP) MLA and former Gujarat Minister Purnesh Modi, under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code. 

On March 23, 2023, the Congress leader who was then a parliamentarian from Wayanad, Kerala, was convicted by Surat District Court and sentenced to two years in jail. This conviction led to Gandhi's disqualification from his membership in Lok Sabha. 

Appeal and plea for stay on conviction:

Gandhi then filed an appeal before the Sessions Court. Also, the appeal being pending, Gandhi moved an interim application seeking stay on his conviction. Senior Advocate RS Cheema appearing for Gandhi argued that the trial in the matter was not fair and the decision of the magistrate court was strange. He alleged that the judge had made a "hotchpotch" of all the evidence on record.

However, the Sessions Court rejected the Congress leader's plea while noting in the order that "Rahul Gandhi failed to demonstrate that by not staying the conviction and denying an opportunity to contest the election, an irreversible and irrevocable damage will be caused to him".

Gandhi then filed an appeal before the high court against the decision of the Sessions Court.

Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi