A local court in Gujarat on Thursday reserved its verdict on the application filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking a stay on his conviction by a magistrate court in the 2019 criminal defamation case.
Judge Robin Mogera at the Surat Sessions Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, reserved his order which will now be pronounced on April 20.
Earlier on March 23, Chief Judicial Magistrate H.H. Varma in Surat had sentenced Gandhi to two years in jail, after finding him guilty under Sections 499 (Defamation) and 500 (punishment for defamation) IPC.
Judge Harish Hasmukhbhai Varma said that since Rahul was a Member of Parliament (MP), whatever he said, was bound to have a greater impact. Thus, he should have exercised restraint.
Gandhi’s conviction under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), both of which warrant a maximum sentence of two years, led to his disqualification from the Parliament, as per a Supreme Court order of 2013.
He was disqualified as a Member of Parliament (MP) of the Lok Sabha on March 24 and further barred from contesting elections till 2031.
Gandhi had moved the Surat sessions court challenging his conviction, through a legal team of Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema and Advocates Kirit Panwala and Tarannum Cheema.
During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Cheema contended that as per the defamation law, only an aggrieved person could file a complaint.
Since the comment targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi, only he could have filed a complaint.
The plea further pointed out that complainant Purnesh Modi was not an aggrieved person for the purposes of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalised defamation and thus, he had no right to file the complaint.
He added that the Court will have to examine whether Purnesh Modi had the locus to file the complaint.
Cheema said that the speech by Gandhi needed to be analysed contextually to ascertain whether there was any intent on part of the speaker to defame the group of persons with the surname Modi.
He argued that the speech could not be termed as defamatory unless it was drawn out of context and looked under a magnifying glass to create or to make it defamatory.
He alleged that the litigation was nothing, but an outcome of speaking up critically against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The lawyer further said that the trial was harsh and unfair to Gandhi.
The Senior Advocate further expressed reservations about the evidence produced before the trial court and said the whole speech was not brought on record.
He noted that the speech was made on April 13, 2019 in Kolar. It was reported by the local press on April 14. A complaint was filed on April 15 and the complainant’s statements were recorded on April 16. After this and till the trial, no other evidence was brought on record, he added.
Cheema further questioned the jurisdiction of the Surat Magistrate court in trying the case when the incident in question had transpired in Kolar. The Senior Advocate noted that the defamation law in its application needed a very close and minute examination.
He further questioned the complainant’s logic in claiming that 13 crore people with Modi surname were defamed when the total population of Gujarat was just six crore.
The lawyer further asked whether everyone with ‘Modi’ surname could constitute a class. He mentioned the statement of a witness, who testified that Modi was not a caste, but Gosai is a caste and Gosai caste people were often termed as Modis.
He pointed out that Gandhi was pronounced guilty at 11:51 am on March 23 and within half an hour, he was handed over the harshest and maximum punishment. The judge had observed that since Rahul was an MP, the court wanted to send a message to the society.
During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Cheema contended that as per the defamation law, only an aggrieved person could file a complaint.
Since the comment targeted Prime Minister Narendra Modi, only he could have filed a complaint.
The plea further pointed out that complainant Purnesh Modi was not an aggrieved person for the purposes of Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which criminalised defamation and thus, he had no right to file the complaint.
He added that the Court will have to examine whether Purnesh Modi had the locus to file the complaint.
Cheema said that the speech by Gandhi needed to be analysed contextually to ascertain whether there was any intent on part of the speaker to defame the group of persons with the surname Modi.
He argued that the speech could not be termed as defamatory unless it was drawn out of context and looked under a magnifying glass to create or to make it defamatory.
He alleged that the litigation was nothing, but an outcome of speaking up critically against Prime Minister Narendra Modi. The lawyer further said that the trial was harsh and unfair to Gandhi.
The Senior Advocate expressed reservations about the evidence produced before the trial court and said the whole speech was not brought on record.
He noted that the speech was made on April 13, 2019 in Kolar. It was reported by the local press on April 14. A complaint was filed on April 15 and the complainant’s statements were recorded on April 16. After this and till the trial, no other evidence was brought on record, he added.
Cheema further questioned the jurisdiction of the Surat Magistrate court in trying the case when the incident in question had transpired in Kolar. The Senior Advocate noted that the defamation law in its application needed a very close and minute examination.
He also questioned the complainant’s logic in claiming that 13 crore people with Modi surname were defamed when the total population of Gujarat was just six crore.
The lawyer further asked whether everyone with ‘Modi’ surname could constitute a class. He mentioned the statement of a witness, who testified that Modi was not a caste, but Gosai is a caste and Gosai caste people were often termed as Modis.
He pointed out that Gandhi was pronounced guilty at 11:51 am on March 23 and within half an hour, he was handed over the harshest and maximum punishment. The Senior Counsel noted that the judge had observed that since Rahul was an MP, the court wanted to send a message to the society.
Appearing for Purnesh Modi, Advocate Harshit Tolia cited an order of the Gujarat High Court on interpretation of Section 389 of Code of Criminal Procedure, which said that the courts have to record concise reasons for staying or not staying the conviction and sentence.
He said losing one’s job was no ground for this court to exercise its extraordinary powers to suspend the sentence. As per the law, the moment one was convicted and sentenced, he or she was disqualified as an MP/MLA.
The advocate said Gandhi was a sitting MP and the president of the second largest party at the time when he gave the speech. His party was India’s first ever largest party. His speech made a huge impact on the people of India. He also tried to sensationalise his own speech, submitted Tolia.
The lawyer mentioned the part of Gandhi’s speech, which hurt the complainant. He said Gandhi spoke of PM Modi during his speech, but did not stop there. He said, ‘Saare choron ka naam Modi Modi Modi hi kyu hai? Dhoondo aur bhi Modi milenge.” The lawyer said this part hurt the complainant.
He also justified the maximum punishment imposed on Gandhi by the trial court, stating that an MP did not deserve any special treatment.
Earlier on April 3, a Sessions Court in Surat had extended Gandhi’s bail till the disposal of appeal.
Though the court did not stay the conviction of Gandhi, it issued notice to complainant Purnesh Modi, who was directed to file a reply by April 10.
The court further said that there was no need for the Congress leader to appear before it on the next date of hearing.
During an election campaign at Kolar in Karnataka in April 2019, Gandhi had said, “Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi. How come all the thieves have ‘Modi’ as a common surname?”
BJP MLA and former Gujarat minister Purnesh Ishvarbhai Modi had filed a defamation suit against Gandhi in Surat, alleging that the remark had defamed the entire Modi community. On the basis of his complaint, a case was registered against Gandhi at Adajan Police Station in Surat district.