In a setback for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, a sessions court in Surat today rejected his plea for stay on his conviction by a Magistrate court in a criminal defamation case against him [Rahul Gandhi vs Purnesh Modi].

Gandhi was convicted by a Magistrate court in Surat on March 23 for his remark "all thieves have Modi surname" which he had made at an election rally in Kolar in 2019.

Additional Sessions Judge Robin Mogera refused to stay the conviction.

This would mean that Gandhi would continue to stand disqualified from Lok Sabha.

Before his conviction, Gandhi was the MP representing Kerala's Wayanad constituency.

Background

Gandhi was convicted by a magistrate court on March 23 on a complaint filed by BJP leader Purnesh Mod, who claimed that the Congress leader through his remark defamed the entire Modi community.

Gandhi had said in his speech, 

"Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi. How come all the thieves have 'Modi' as a common surname?"

Purnesh Modi filed a defamation suit against Gandhi claiming that by this statement, Gandhi defamed all the persons with 'Modi' surname.

Magistrate Hadirash Varma convicted Gandhi for criminal defamation and sentenced him to two years in jail.

The judge said that Rahul Gandhi, through his statement, had insulted all persons with the Modi surname for his political interest.

As a result of his conviction, Gandhi was disqualified as a Lok Sabha MP.

Gandhi then moved the Surat sessions court challenging his conviction, through a legal team of Senior Advocate RS Cheema and Advocates Kirit Panwala and Tarannum Cheema.

Gandhi's arguments

On April 13, Judge Mogera heard the submissions of both the parties on the point of whether to stay the conviction or not. 

On that day, advocate Cheema, appearing for Gandhi, argued that his client's speech needs to be analysed contextually to ascertain whether there was any intent on the part of the speaker to defame the group of persons with the surname Modi.

"My speech isn't defamatory unless drawn out of context, looked under a magnifying glass to create or to make it defamatory," Cheema had underlined.

The instant litigation, he claimed, was nothing but an outcome of speaking up critically against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, it was contended.

"Basically a litigation inflicted upon me for daring to be vociferously critical about our PM. Trial was harsh and unfair to me," Cheema said.

The senior advocate  also questioned the complainant's logic in claiming that 13 crore people with Modi surname were defamed when the total population of Gujaratis was only 6 crores.

"It is claimed there are 13 crore Modis across India. I find it mind boggling that a populace of that figure would be categorised as 'collection of persons'. Gujarat's population was nearly 6 crore in 2011," Cheema had said.

Importantly, Cheema had highlighted how the trial court had pronounced Gandhi guilty and had imposed the maximum sentence for the offence immediately after the conviction.

"At 11:51 AM, my client is pronounced guilty and within half n hour he is handed over the harshest and maximum punishment. The judge has said that you are an MP and I want to send a message to the society," he had pointed out.

"I am sure the court was very well aware that had it punished me even a one day less, I wouldn't have been disqualified," he added.

Complainant's arguments

Advocate Harshit Tolia representing Purnesh Modi, had argued that losing ones job was no ground for the court to exercise it's extraordinary and discretionary powers to suspend the sentence.

Tolia urged the court to consider the gravity of the offence as it was committed by a sitting Member of Parliament. 

In his submissions, Tolia emphasised on the "arrogance" of Gandhi and the fact that he has not apologised over his statements yet. 

"Gandhi's conduct deserves no sympathy and his sentence shouldn't be suspended. He isn't saying a sorry. This is his arrogance he can't say a sorry. He is such a tall leader. Such a big personality, he can't say a sorry but only shows arrogance. He isn't entitled to any relief at this stage," it was vehemently contended.

Tolia also highlighted how Gandhi had brought with him other Congress leaders while filing his appeal.

"He is bringing legislators to the Court. They are showing the public that yes we are legislators and we are supporting our leader. Legislators must understand that they are first the servants of the public then their party and then their leader. If you want to support your leader and stand in solidarity with him then better resign from your post and then support him everywhere," it was submitted.

Tolia further said that part of the speech against 'Modi surname' was what hurt his client.

"In his speech, he spoke of PM Modi but didn't stop there and went beyond it. He has said, 'Saare choron ka naam Modi Modi Modi hi kyu hai? Dhoondo aur bhi Modi milenge'. My client is hurt by this part of the speech thus the complaint," Tolia stated.

Tolia also justified the maximum punishment imposed on Gandh by the trial court,

"First is he was conscious as he was addressing the rally. He addressed PM Modi and was so childish that he wasn't aware that referring to Modi surname would mean all the Modis?" Tolia submitted.

He also said that an MP does not deserve any special treatment.

"Suppose one doctor is convicted, the medical council will act against him. If a lawyer commits an misconduct his Sanad will go. Similarly, if an MP is convicted he will be disqualified. What is so special or exceptional in this case," Tolia asked.

Countering the submissions, Cheema had clarified that his client cannot be pressurised to apologise and the same cannot be a pre-condition for hearing of the appeal. 

The Court after hearing both parties had reserved its verdict on April 13.