Rahul Gandhi 'Modi Surname' Defamation Case: What Happened In Supreme Court Today

A three-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar was hearing Rahul Gandhi's appeal against the Gujarat High Court's order.

Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi. ( Image Source :PTI )

The Supreme Court stayed Rahul Gandhi's conviction in a defamation case on Friday, citing many concerns and shortcomings in the trial court's handling of the case. A Gujarat court found Congress leader Rahul Gandhi guilty of defamation for statements against the 'Modi' surname. Rahul Gandhi was sentenced to two years in prison by the court, and as a result, he was immediately disqualified from the Lok Sabha.

WHAT SUPREME COURT SAID?

A three-judge bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar was hearing Gandhi's appeal against the Gujarat High Court's rejection to suspend his conviction in a criminal defamation case over the 'Modi thieves' statement, which resulted in his exclusion from the Lok Sabha. 

While Gandhi's statements may not have been in good taste, the Supreme Court noted that as a public figure, he was required to take greater discretion while making public speeches. Notably, the court referred to an earlier case, stating that if the decision in that case had been issued before Gandhi's speech, he would have been more circumspect in his comments.

Among the objections highlighted by the Supreme Court was the fact that the trial judge sentenced Gandhi to the maximum penalty of two years without providing any justification. "The sentence for an offence punishable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code is maximum of two years of sentence or fine or both. The learned trial judge, in the order passed by him, has awarded the maximum sentence of two years. Except the admonition to the petitioner by this Court in a contempt proceeding, no other reason has been granted by the learned trial judge while imposing the maximum sentence of two years," the court was quoted by LiveLaw in its report.

The court went on to say that the sole reason Gandhi was disqualified appears to be the length of his sentence. The Supreme Court emphasised the importance of this clause since it affects not only the rights of the condemned individual but also those of the electorate.

"It is to be noted that it is only on account of the maximum sentence of two years imposed by the learned trial judge that the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act came into play. Had the sentence been a day lesser, then the provisions would not have been attracted," the court said.

"Particularly 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. Though the learned appellate court and the High Court have spent voluminous pages in rejecting the applications, these aspects are not seen considered," the court further stated. 

At the same time, the bench stated that Rahul Gandhi's remarks were not in "good taste" and that a public figure should have been more cautious while giving public addresses.

'HE IS NOT A HARDENED CRIMINAL': WHAT GANDHI'S ADVOCATE SAID?

Senior Advocate Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Gandhi, stated at the beginning that the complainant, BJP MLA Purnesh Modi, is a member of the Modh Vanika Samaj, which comprises members of various groups. 

According to the archives, the Modi surname belongs to a variety of castes. He noted that, of the 13 crore people supposed to be part of the Modi community, just a few BJP supporters had filed criminal defamation suits. He said that the class of people who share the Modi surname is not an identifiable class under Section 499/500 IPC, which allows them to launch a claim for defamation. 

Singhvi then emphasised that the Court imposing the maximum punishment of two years for criminal defamation is extremely rare. "I am yet to see a non-cognizable, bail and compoundable offence, which is not against society, which is not kidnapping, rape and murder, in which the maximum sentence is given. How can this become an offence involving moral turpitude?", Singhvi was quoted by LiveLaw in its report. 

He further stated that the highest punishment effectively silences Gandhi for eight years since it disqualifies him from voting under the RP Act. 

"The learned judge also discusses your criminal antecedents?" Justice Gavai inquired. Gandhi has no past convictions, according to Singhvi. He apologised in one contempt case before the Supreme Court. Other cases are pending due to complaints filed by BJP workers.

"He is not a hardened criminal. There is no conviction in any case", Singhvi stated. "There has to be some mutual respect in politics. I am not a criminal", he stated. 

WHAT COMPLAINANT'S ADVOCATE SAID?

Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani stated that the videos of the speech were presented to the Court as evidence. A witness who heard Gandhi's comments at the gathering was called in to authenticate the footage. Furthermore, the speech was never denied. 

Gandhi's objective, according to Jethmalani, was to discredit the whole Modi community just because the Prime Minister's surname was Modi. Gandhi stated in his Section 313 testimony before the trial court that he did not recall the speech.

At this point, Justice Gavai commented that politicians who speak multiple public gatherings a day may not recall their speeches. Jethmalani emphasised that he was an accused facing a trial against a mountain of evidence. 

Using a Supreme Court precedent, Jethmalani contended that 'Modi' was an identifiable class and therefore anyone with the surname 'Modi' had locus standi to submit the suit.

The senior lawyer then contended that the Representation of Peoples Act does not include "moral turpitude" and simply states that a sentence of two years or more will result in disqualification. In the Lily Thomas case in 2013, the Supreme Court overturned Section 8(4), which allowed the disqualification to be suspended while an appeal was pending. He contended that the current attempt to obtain a stay of conviction was an attempt to "bring through the backdoor" a provision that the Supreme Court had previously ruled down.