22 February 2025

Supreme Court Halts the Conviction of Rahul Gandhi in the Criminal Defamation Case

0

The apex court stayed Rahul Gandhi’s two-year sentence, citing lack of reasoning. Implications on public life and electorate considered.

The Print

Image Source: The Print

The Supreme Court of India has issued a stay on the two-year imprisonment and conviction of Rahul Gandhi, the prominent Congress party leader, in a criminal defamation case filed by Purnesh Modi. This conviction was a result of his remark, “Why do all thieves have the surname Modi?”

In its order, the Apex Court stated, “The maximum sentence for an offense punishable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code is two years of imprisonment, a fine, or both. The trial judge imposed the maximum sentence without providing any specific reasons, except for the petitioner’s admonition in a contempt proceeding. Notably, it’s due to this two-year sentence that the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act came into play. Had the sentence been a day shorter, these provisions wouldn’t have been applicable.”

“The trial judge was expected to provide reasons for imposing the maximum punishment, especially since the offense was non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable. While the appellate court and the High Court rejected applications in detail, these specific aspects were not considered.”

A bench of esteemed justices – BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and PV Sanjay Kumar – remarked, “There’s no doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant are not in good taste. A person in public life is expected to exercise restraint while making public speeches.” The bench considered view is that the implications of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act are significant. They not only affect the appellant’s right to continue in public life but also impact the rights of the electorate who elected him. Considering these aspects and the absence of reasons from the trial judge for imposing the maximum sentence, leading to disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Act, the conviction order needs to be stayed.

This case dates back to April 13, 2019, when Rahul Gandhi made a Hindi remark during a political rally in Kolar, Karnataka, India, prior to the Indian general election. He humorously questioned the prevalence of the surname “Modi” among various individuals, including Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, and Narendra Modi, all associated with alleged misconduct. This led Purnesh Modi, a BJP MLA, to file a criminal defamation case accusing Gandhi of defaming all individuals sharing the surname Modi. In response, Rahul Gandhi pleaded not guilty during the Surat trial court proceedings, asserting that his statement was intended as election-related sarcasm rather than an attack on any community.

On March 23, 2023, the Surat trial court handed down a verdict, finding Rahul Gandhi guilty of the charges and sentencing him to two years in prison. The court’s decision was based on his acknowledgment of the contentious aspects of his statement. Additionally, he was granted a 30-day window to appeal the verdict. Following the conviction, Lok Sabha Secretary General Utpal Kumar Singh declared Rahul Gandhi disqualified as a parliament member from the Wayanad constituency, effective March 23, in accordance with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA).

Representation of the People Act, 1951:
The Representation of the People Act, 1951, is a crucial legislation in India that governs election conduct and qualifications of members in the country’s Parliament and State Legislatures. It was enacted to amend and consolidate laws related to the preparation of electoral rolls, election conduct, and related matters.

Further, the court mentioned, “We stay the conviction order during the pending appeal. The parties can approach the appellate court for expedited appeal proceedings.”

-Ayush Kumar

Team Profile

Ayush Kumar
Ayush KumarFreelance Journalist

Leave a Reply