No relief for Rahul Gandhi in defamation case, Gujarat High Court says final order after summer break

Justice Prachchhak will be unavailable from May 4 since he will be travelling abroad.

On Tuesday, he called for records of the defamation trial before the Surat magistrate court for his perusal.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi , Gandhi’s counsel, sought interim relief by way of a stay on the conviction in the period leading up to the final pronouncement of the verdict after the judge indicated the expected timeline of the verdict.

Justice Prachchhak, however, said he would be passing final orders in the case and refused to grant any interim stay.

An interim stay on conviction could have permitted Gandhi to approach Parliament and seek to be re-instituted to Lok Sabha for the interim period, one of the opposing lawyers told The Indian Express. Gandhi remains protected from arrest owing to the stay on his sentence and bail.

The High Court, in its order, recorded that “since the court has finally heard the matter, in the interest of justice, the interim protection cannot be granted at this stage. Hence, the request for interim protection is refused.”

Meanwhile, complainant Purnesh Modi, through senior counsel Nirupam Nanavati, opposing Gandhi’s plea for a stay on conviction, submitted Tuesday that the offence of defamation will be considered as serious since Parliament itself, while enacting Section 8 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, had considered convictions which has sentence of 2 years or more as serious and thus provisioned for disqualification.

Nanavati’s argument was in response to Gandhi’s submission last week that the offence of defamation does not count as serious and neither does it qualify as one of moral turpitude.

Nanavati submitted that the only sufferance shown by Gandhi in his petition is the loss of his elected seat and that he will not be able to contest the elections if a stay on his conviction is not granted. This sufferance, Nanavati said, is owing to provisions under Parliamentary legislation, and not owing to court’s directions, and thus cannot be put forth as a ground for seeking stay on conviction before the court.