Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case Appeal: What He Argued vs What Purnesh Modi Said

Last month, Rahul Gandhi was sentenced to two years in prison by a Surat court in a criminal defamation case.

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.

(Photo: PTI)

A Surat court will pronounce its verdict on the appeal filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi against his conviction in a criminal defamation case on 20 April.

The sessions court heard the plea, as well as the contentions of the complainant BJP leader Purnesh Modi on Thursday, 13 April. The court, thereby, reserved its verdict in the matter.

But what happened in the court today? What did Gandhi’s counsel argue? And what did the complainant’s lawyer say?

BUT FIRST: 

Last month, a trial court convicted Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case and sentenced him to two years in jail. Gandhi was disqualified as a member of the Lok Sabha shortly afterwords.

Rahul’s alleged ‘crime’? As per media reports, the Congress leader had said in 2019: “Why do all the thieves, be it Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi or Narendra Modi, have Modi in their names?”

SO WHAT DID RAHUL GANDHI ARGUE IN COURT?

Appearing for Rahul Gandhi, Senior Advocate RS Cheema, according to Bar and Bench, pointed out before the court that only an aggrieved person can file a defamation complaint, as per the law. He added that:

“Explanation 2 to section 499 (Defamation) of the IPC states it would be defamation if it is against a company, a group of persons etc. I am defamed only if my company, my group or collection of persons is defamed. Only then I can filed a complaint.”

The complainant had claimed that 13 crore people with the Modi surname had been defamed by Gandhi’s remark. In that context, Cheema said:

He also noted that there is a lot of confusion, emanating even from the witness statements, about whether Modi is a caste or if the caste is Gosai and Gosai people are often termed as Modis. 

Thereby Cheema added that the speech made by Gandhi isn’t defamatory unless drawn out of context. He also argued that it needs to be juxtaposed against the context to ascertain whether there was any intent on Gandhi’s part to defame all people with the surname Modi.

Pertinently, the senior advocate noted:

He also said that the litigation was imposed on him for speaking critically about Prime Minister Narendra Modi:

Further, Cheema lamented the trial court’s claim that Supreme Court had already warned Gandhi, but even so he went ahead and made the contentious remark. 

“I tendered an apology to the Supreme Court (for attributing Chowkidar hi Chor hai comment to the top court) in November 2019. But I made speech in question in this case in April 2019. So, how can the judge rely on the proceedings where the complainant has said I was admonished by the top court…how can they interpret it and say I didn't learnt from the proceedings in the top court.”

Advocate RS Cheema, appearing for Rahul Gandhi

Questioning the jurisdiction of the Surat court order, Cheema pointed out that the speech was made in Kolar.

The senior advocate also found it pertinent to point out that his client was imposed with the harshest and maximum punishment permissible under the law and if he had been punished by even a day less he would have been able to retain his seat as MP.

What Did Purnesh Modi Argue?

Appearing for Purnesh Modi, advocate Harshit Tolia reportedly said:

He also reiterated his claim that part of Gandhi’s remark hurt his client.

He also alleged that Gandhi and leaders of his party are making “unfair comments” on the court.

“He is saying that within one month of withdrawing the plea from the Gujarat High Court, the case was decided by the Magistrate. Isn't this an imputation against the Judge?” Tolia asked, as per Bar and Bench.

(With inputs from Bar and Bench.)