Modi surname case: Rahul Gandhi files petition in SC over Gujarat HC's refusal to stay conviction

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has filed a plea in the Supreme Court, contending that if his conviction in a defamation case for his 2019 remarks as to why all thieves had Modi surname, is not stayed, it would lead to throttling of free speech, expression, thought, and statement. 

“It would contribute to the systematic, repetitive emasculation of democratic institutions and the consequent strangulation of democracy which would be gravely detrimental to the political climate and future of India,” his plea stated.

In his special leave petition, Gandhi said challenged the Gujarat High Court's July 7 decision declining his plea for stay on the conviction relying upon "extraneous and irrelevant factors" like pendency of similar cases against him. 

In a democracy, the opinion of the people is supreme and the choice of the voter is treated as the will of the people, his plea said, adding the verdict under appeal has directly led to a situation resulting in the disqualification of the petitioner as a legislator. 

Also Read | Kerala HC stays trial against staff members of Rahul Gandhi's Wayanad office in vandalisation case

"If the operation of the judgement of conviction is not stayed, a by-election shall be held within the period stipulated and the petitioner shall forfeit his right to represent the constituency and his political party for the remaining part of his tenure," the plea stated.

He stated this loss is irreparable as even the subsequent acquittal of the petitioner cannot undo the damage and the issue may also be looked at from the point of view of the electorate. 

“The disqualification of an elected representative essentially interferes with the choice of the electorate in a free and fair election,” he said.

Justifying his 2019 statement, Gandhi said he has the right to criticise and comment upon the measures undertaken by the Prime Minister, who is his political opponent, and merely because he was critical or he had a different opinion, the complaint for defamation can’t be sustained against him. 

“It is in that context that the petitioner addressed Prime Minister Narendra Modi as a thief for a substantial reason that the money of the poor people of the country was given away to Anil Ambani. Neither complainant nor his witnesses say that the allegations in this regard were false."

"The petitioner, if at all spoke as to why the surname of all thieves is Modi, he spoke of it in relation to this theme of misgovernance of Shri Modi and not in connection with any Modi samaj or persons holding Modi surname,” his petition stated.

His plea also contended that if political satire were to be held to be a base motive, then any political speech which is colourfully critical of the government would become an act of moral turpitude, which would completely corrode the foundations of democracy. 

In the case, the High Court, after considering the irrelevant factors, has invented a hitherto unknown definition for the seriousness of an offence through several leaps of logic, by first misreading and misconstruing the idea of ‘moral turpitude’ and then using that misconstrued notion also to misconstrue the idea of a ‘serious offence.’

The plea contended that depravity and vileness, which are the essential core of moral turpitude, are associated with rapists, serious murderers, heinous violence, and such other similar crimes. 

“To equate a political speech criticising the government or a section of society, even if defamatory, sets a completely incongruous standard unknown to jurisprudence which deals with moral turpitude,” it contended.

On March 23, 2023, the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat had held Gandhi guilty for the offence of defamation and awarded him a maximum two-year jail term on the complaint by Purnesh Modi.

The conviction had led to the disqualification of Gandhi as Wayanad MP. On April 20, a sessions court in Surat had dismissed Gandhi's plea to stay his conviction. Subsequently, the HC had on July 7 also rejected his plea for suspending the conviction, affecting his chances to get back his status as the Member of Parliament.