Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court of India on Friday stayed the conviction of Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi in the 2019 criminal defamation case over his Modi surname remark.

A three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar came to this decision after hearing Senior Advocates AM Singhvi and Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Gandhi and the complainant Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, respectively.

Notably, Justice BR Gavai, while setting aside the Gujarat High Court's order refusing to stay Gandhi' conviction, made certain observations on the trial court's judgement and on the conduct of a person in public life.

Firstly, on the Trial Judge, awarding the maximum sentence of two years, it has been observed that except the admonition given to Gandhi by the Supreme Court in contempt proceedings in Yashwant Sinha and Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director and another, no other reason was assigned.

In this regard, it has been added that when an offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable, the least that the Trial Judge was expected to do was to give some reasons as to why, in the facts and circumstances, he found it necessary to impose the maximum sentence of two years.

Secondly, top court has noted that only on account of the maximum sentence of two years imposed by the trial Judge, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 on disqualification have come into play.

"Had the sentence been even a day lesser, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act would not have been attracted..", Justice Gavai has said.

Court has added the Appellate Court and High Court have spent voluminous pages while rejecting the application for stay of conviction, but these aspects have not even been touched in their orders.

Thirdly, Court has also reprimanded Gandhi noting that his alleged utterances are not in good taste. "A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches. However, as has been observed by this Court while accepting affidavit of the appellant herein in aforementioned contempt proceedings, the appellant herein ought to have been more careful while making the public speech. May be, had the judgment of the Apex Court in the contempt proceedings come prior to the speech made by the appellant, the appellant would have been more careful and exercised a degree of restraint while making the alleged remarks, which were found to be defamatory by the Trial Judge.", the bench has added.

Lastly, Court has also considered the ramification of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the RP Act as being wide-ranging on the account that they not only affect Gandhi's right to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who have elected him, to represent their constituency.

In his recent rejoinder, Gandhi had defended the remarks made by him on the Modi surname by saying that as a Parliamentarian and a Leader of the Opposition, it was necessary for him to critically evaluate the conduct and performance of the ruling establishment.

Gandhi had approached the top court on July 15 after a single judge bench of Justice Hemant Prachchhak had tabled the verdict in the 'Modi' surname remark case upholding his 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. 

Case Title: Rahul Gandhi vs. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi