The Gujarat High Court on Tuesday refused to grant interim relief to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi on his plea for a stay on conviction in a criminal defamation case over his “all thieves have Modi as the common surname” remark, saying it will pass its final order post-summer vacation in the first week of June.
Rahul’s counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi cited “extreme urgency” to request the HC for an interim or a final order after arguments from both sides in the matter concluded during the day.
The court of Justice Hemant Prachchhak, however, said no interim protection can be granted at this stage. In final submissions, Singhvi said there was hardly any instance in criminal defamation where an accused was sentenced to more than 3 to 6 months in jail, and that his client was a first-time offender.
The complainant’s lawyer opposed Singhvi’s prayer for interim relief to the former Congress president, sentenced to two years in jail by the trial court in Surat, and said if the disqualified MP cannot apologise for his defamatory utterances, then he should also not approach the HC for stay on conviction.
Rahul had prayed in the HC for a stay on conviction, which if granted, will pave the way for his reinstatement as a Member of Parliament. Justice Prachchhak said he will pass a final order only after going through the records and proceedings, and posted the matter for verdict after reopening of the HC post- summer vacation, which will be from May 8 to June 3.
Advocate Nirupam Nanavati, who appeared for Gujarat BJP MLA Purnesh Modi, the original complainant in the case, opposed Singhvi’s prayer for interim relief to the Opposition politician who was elected to the Lok Sabha from Wayanad in Kerala in 2019.
Being a leader of a national political party, which has ruled the country for over 40 years, Rahul must “learn a lesson” that using abusive language for his political opponents cannot be tolerated, the counsel for Purnesh said.
“If Gandhi cannot apologise for his defamatory utterances, then he should also not approach the court with prayer for relief for stay of conviction,” Nanavati said. He further said even after the pronouncement of conviction and his subsequent disqualification as an MP, Rahul continued to stand by his statement and refused to apologise, and cited a newspaper report in which the Congress leader had said he will not apologise as he is a “Gandhi and not Veer Savarkar”.
Nanavati said Rahul neither apologised before the commencement of the trial in Surat nor said sorry or expressed regret and offered no explanation even during hearing on sentencing. “Coincidentally, the surname of the Prime Minister of the country is also Modi. What message are you giving by this utterance to the world -- that an Opposition leader of India brands the PM as a thief in a public rally attended by thousands of people? Is this the language?” he asked during his submission.
Nanavati said Rahul is facing 12 criminal defamation cases for his remarks in different courts across the country. He said it is Parliament which made the law regarding disqualification of an MP.
Singhvi said the category for defamation makes it the simplest offence, and CrPC section 389 (for stay of conviction) will not find “a simpler conviction to suspend than defamation which is non-cognizable, which is simple imprisonment, bailable and not anti-society.”
“If there is a classic offence which is the mildest form of offence which must lead to section 389 suspension then it is this,” said the senior counsel. Singhvi said a parliamentarian has a greater “irreversible prejudice” than a non-MP convict, because the former happens to lose his seat due to two-year imprisonment, “and that is a point in my favour and not against me for relief under section 389 (of CrPC).”
