Video Producers: Aparna Singh, Shohini Bose
Video Editor: Shohini Bose
A sessions court in Surat on Thursday, 20 April, rejected Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's plea seeking a stay on his conviction in the 2019 'Modi-surname' criminal defamation case.
The court, on 23 March, had convicted Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case for his comment that said "all people with Modi surname are thieves" that he made during an election rally in Kolar in April 2019.
He has sentenced him to two years in jail and was disqualified as a member of the Lok Sabha a day later.
A stay on the verdict would have paved way for Rahul Gandhi to be reinstated in the Parliament.
What Happens Next?
Since the sessions court on 3 April granted him bail in the case till the disposal of his appeal, Gandhi will remain out of prison but also out of the Parliament till the conviction by the Surat court is either stayed or suspended.
The Congress is likely to move the Gujarat High Court in the matter tomorrow, reports say.
Gandhi's disqualification from the Lok Sabha can be reversed if the Gujarat HC grants a stay on the conviction by the Surat court or rules in his favour against the sessions court’s order.
However, under Section 389 of the CrPC, the stay cannot just be the suspension of the sentence , but a stay of the conviction, a legal expert said.
Congress communications incharge Jairam Ramesh took to Twitter to say: "We will continue to avail all options still available to us under the law."
What the Congress Said
Addressing the media, Singhvi said that it was a unfortunate that a wrong verdict was upheld.
"It defies all basis of law. A wrong decision has been affrimed by the court. We will avail all legal options. We will go to High Court soon," said Singhvi without giving a date for when the party will move the Gujarat High Court.
"The Constitutional courts, including the Supreme Court, has ample powers under which these wrong decisions will be challenged. We hope that these will be corrected lawfully," he added.
Alleging that Rahul Gandhi's statement was distorted, reconstructed, and misquoted, Singhvi said: "The claims being mad about OBCs are backfiring. The community has understood how they are being misused politically by the BJP."
"If they think Rahul Gandhi can be silenced by this, they neither know him or the Congress party. He speaks clearly and firmly. He speaks in favour of the people. Targeting him, trolling him, putting preconditions before allowing him to speak in the Parliament, threatening him via privileged committees is not going to scare him or the Congress. He will avail all constitutional and legal options. The BJP is only scared, and not answering important questions relate to corruption," he added.
The 'Modi-Surname' Case
Alleging defamation, BJP MLA and former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi had filed a complaint under Sections 499 (defamation) and 500 (punishment for defamation) of the Indian Penal Code against Rahul Gandhi for his alleged remarks.
Following his conviction in March, his sentence was suspended and he was also granted bail to enable him to appeal against his conviction within 30 days.
The sessions court on 3 April granted him bail in the case till the disposal of his appeal.
On 13 April, the sessions court heard Gandhi's plea, as well as the contentions of Purnesh Modi, and reserved its verdict in the matter for 20 April.
More Details of the Plea
Gandhi's lawyers had filed two applications, one for a stay on the sentence (or bail till the disposal of his appeal) and another for a stay on conviction till the disposal of the appeal.
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. Moreover, Cheema pointed out that the speech is not defamatory until it is taken out of context.
Gandhi said that the trial court stated two reasons for the conviction - that the complainant (BJP Leader Purnesh Modi) was shocked at his statements, and that his reputation was hurt. However these reasons do not make Purnesh Modi an aggrieved person under IPC Sections 499 (defamation) and 500 (punishment for defamation.)
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.
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)