New Delhi: The Supreme Court Friday stayed the conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in the 2019 criminal defamation case that had led to his disqualification as Lok Sabha MP.
A bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar observed, “No doubt that the utterances by the petitioner are not in good taste, a person in a public light is expected to exercise a degree of caution while making public speeches.”
However, it asserted that the “ramifications” of the ruling and of the subsequent disqualification are “wide… they not only affect the rights of the petitioner to continue in public light, but also the rights of the electorate who have elected him to represent their constituency”.
The stay virtually reverses Gandhi’s disqualification, because the Supreme Court, in 2018, had clarified that disqualification triggered by a conviction will cease to operate if the conviction is stayed by a court.
It had observed, “Once the conviction has been stayed during the pendency of an appeal, the disqualification which operates as a consequence of the conviction cannot take or remain in effect.”
On Friday, the Supreme Court asserted that the maximum sentence for defamation under the Indian Penal Code is two years or fine, or both. However, it pointed out that the trial court, while awarding him the maximum punishment, had not cited any reason, except for the admonition that Gandhi had received from the Supreme Court in the contempt proceedings over his “chowkidaar chor hai” remarks in connection with the controversy over the Rafale deal.
It then pointed out that Gandhi’s disqualification was only due to the imposition of the maximum sentence on him. It noted that while the “learned appellate court and the learned high court have spent voluminous pages while rejecting the application for stay of conviction”, they had not addressed the reasons for imposition of the maximum sentence on him.
The court, however, clarified that it was refraining from making any observation about the merits of the matter, as it may affect the appeal against conviction that is pending before a Gujarat sessions court.
It also said that this stay would not stop the sessions court from hearing the appeal.
Also Read: SC calls Manipur govt out on ‘absolute breakdown of law & order’, summons DGP
The conviction
Earlier this year, Gandhi was convicted by a Surat district court in a 2019 criminal defamation case, and sentenced him to two years imprisonment.
The defamation complaint was filed on 15 April 2019, by former Gujarat minister and BJP MLA from Surat West Purnesh Modi over Gandhi’s remarks at a Lok Sabha election rally in Karnataka’s Kolar on 13 April 2019. Gandhi had said, “Why do all thieves have Modi in their names whether it be Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, or Narendra Modi?”
In the 168-page order, the court noted that the complaint had not been filed on the grounds of public defamation of the Modi community samaaj or caste, but on account of the pain caused to the complainant himself.
The court noted that Gandhi could have stopped after giving the suffix of ‘chor’ to PM Modi, and after comparing him to economic offenders like Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Mehul Choksi and Vijay Mallya.
However, it added that Gandhi asked “why do all thieves have Modi in their surname” to “intentionally insult all those with the surname ‘Modi’ or anyone known by the name of ‘Modi”.
On 20 April, the Surat sessions court dismissed Gandhi’s application seeking a stay on his conviction. On 7 July, the Gujarat High Court also rejected a plea filed by Gandhi to stay his conviction. Gandhi had approached the Supreme Court challenging the high court order.
‘How is this moral turpitude?’
Arguing for Gandhi Friday, senior advocate A.M. Singhvi pointed out that the offence of defamation under criminal law is non-cognisable, bailable, and compoundable.
He then asserted that the Gujarat High Court, while rejecting the application for stay of the conviction, had held that “the offence committed by the accused falls in the category of moral turpitude”.
“How can this become an offence involving moral turpitude?” Singhvi asked. He also pointed out that Gandhi had never been convicted in any case before and that he had no criminal antecedents.
“Look at the chart (filed in court). Full of cases filed by BJP karyakartas, but never any conviction,” Singhvi submitted. He also said it wasn’t Gandhi’s intention to cause harm to anyone’s reputation.
Appearing for the complainant, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani said Gandhi’s “intention was to defame every person with the surname Modi, just because it matches that of the Prime Minister”.
“You have defamed an entire class out of malice,” he said.
He added that while Gandhi was admonished by the Supreme Court for his “chowkidaar chor hai” remarks, “there is no change in his conduct”.
However, Justice Gavai mulled over whether the constituency being underrepresented was a relevant factor that the bench needed to consider.
He asked, “There is no whisper by the trial judge for the need to impose the maximum sentence. You are not only affecting the right of one individual but an entire electorate of a constituency. Has he (trial court judge) touched on this?”
“He (trial court judge) says merely because one is MP, it can’t be grounds for special concession. He gives quite a lot of preachings as to what is expected, makes an interesting reading,” Justice Gavai added.
This is an updated version of the report
(Edited by Sunanda Ranjan)
Also Read: 24,000+ cases pending in SC for more than 5 yrs, 8,000 for over a decade, govt tells Rajya Sabha