Defamation case: Supreme Court issues notice to Gujarat govt on Rahul Gandhi plea against HC order

Though senior advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Rahul, sought an “interim suspension” of conviction, the court declined to go into it.

At the very outset, Justice Gavai told the parties that his father had been associated with the Congress for a long time and asked them to take a call on whether he should hear the matter or not.

“There is some difficulty on my part. My father was associated… though he was not a Congress member, he was associated with Congress and very closely… he was associated with Congress for more than 40 years. He had been a Member of Parliament, Member of Legislature with the support of the Congress and my brother is still in politics and associated with Congress. So in this background, you have to take a call whether I should take up the matter or not,” Justice Gavai said.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for complainant Purnesh Modi, said: “We have no objection.”

Justice Gavai then added that in the case of Madras High Court judge Victoria Gowri – whose political affiliations were questioned – “that time itself I had said I have a political background and I have been judge for more than 20 years but it has never affected my (judgment)… So you take a call whether I should take up this matter or not”.

“Both of us are ad idem, I have no difficulty,” Jethmalani responded. Singhvi said Rahul “has suffered 111 days”. “He has lost one Parliament session, he is losing the next. Elections to Wayanad constituency can technically be notified any time…,” he added.

Justice Gavai said the court is “willing to take it up at the shortest possible time”.

Singhvi said the “complainant would be interested in offence, he cannot be interested about the disqualification in the technical sense”.

Justice Gavai said “the limited question here is whether the conviction deserves to be suspended or not”.

Singhvi then urged the court to consider interim suspension or give him the shortest possible date. “If your Lordships can consider an interim suspension or give shortest possible date,” he submitted.

The bench, however, declined to go into it “at this stage”.

In March, a magisterial court in Surat had convicted and sentenced Rahul to two years in prison, finding him guilty of criminal defamation following a complaint by BJP’s Surat West MLA Purnesh Modi, who objected to the Congress leader’s remarks in Karnataka’s Kolar in April 2019 – in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections – about “thieves with Modi surname”.

Following his conviction, Rahul was disqualified from Lok Sabha where he represented the Wayanad constituency in Kerala.

On July 7, the Gujarat High Court declined to stay Rahul’s conviction, making several observations, including that “the offence committed by the accused falls in the category of moral turpitude” and that the “need of the hour” is to “have purity in politics”.

Stating that Rahul was seeking a stay on his conviction “on absolutely non-existent grounds”, the HC upheld the April order of the Surat sessions court that declined to stay his conviction.