Rahul Gandhi’s sentence stayed, big things about hearing on Modi surname defamation case in Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has given a big relief to former Congress President Rahul Gandhi. SC stays Rahul’s two-year sentence in defamation case. Justice BR Gavai, Justice PS Narasimha and Prashant Kumar Mishra’s bench said in the order that the trial court judge should have given the reasons for awarding the maximum sentence in his decision. The Supreme Court said that if Rahul had been sentenced to 1 year and 11 months, he would not have been disqualified as an MP. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi presented arguments on behalf of Rahul Gandhi in SC. Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani argued on behalf of complainant Purnesh Modi. Both the parties were given 15 minutes each by the court. Rahul had challenged the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to grant suspension of sentence in the ‘Modi surname’ defamation case. Watch every update related to today’s hearing in the Supreme Court.

The lower court did not give the reason for the sentence

The Supreme Court, while giving relief to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, said that the ramifications of the trial court’s order are wide-ranging. This affected not only Rahul Gandhi’s right to continue in public life, but also the right of the electorate to elect him. The Supreme Court says that no reason has been given by the trial court judge to impose the maximum punishment, there is a need to stay the order of conviction till the final verdict.

What did the Supreme Court say while staying the sentence of Rahul Gandhi

The trial court’s decision has had a wide impact. Not only Rahul Gandhi’s right to public life was affected, but also that of the electors who had elected him. The trial judge has not given any reason for imposing the maximum sentence. It is necessary to stay the order of punishment till the final decision is taken.
Supreme Court

Arguments of Rahul Gandhi’s lawyer in the Supreme Court

• Hearing begins in Supreme Court on Rahul Gandhi’s plea in ‘Modi surname’ defamation case. The Supreme Court gave 15-15 minutes to both the sides. Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi is appearing for Rahul.
• Justice Gavai told Singhvi that you have to strengthen the case very much to stay the sentence. The sentence is usually upheld. Singhvi said that today he is not debating the sentence.
• Singhvi’s first argument: (complainant) Purnesh Modi’s original surname is not Modi…he changed it to Modh. Modi’s lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani interrupted – Modi, not Modi.
• Singhvi said- No one sued those whose names Gandhi took in his speech. It is interesting that only BJP office bearers filed cases against this ‘small’ community of 13 crores. Very strange!
• Singhvi cited the defamation law (Section 499 of the IPC) to say that ‘no imputation is intended to damage the reputation of a person, unless it lowers the moral or intellectual character of a person’.
• Singhvi said, ‘It is a non-cognizable offence. It is not against the society… Neither murder, nor rape, nor kidnapping… Maximum punishment of 2 years… Where did the crime of moral turpitude come from in this?’
• Singhvi said, ‘This person (Rahul) will be silenced for 8 years? There are differences in a democracy. In Hindi we say decent language, I don’t think there would have been such an intention…’. Justice Narasimha said that the trial court judge spoke of criminal tendency. On this, Singhvi said that ‘I (Rahul) am not a criminal’.
• Singhvi said that election to Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha seat (Wayanad) has not been announced. Perhaps they know that the chances of defeat are very less. On this, Justice Gavai said that make the matter a political vote. Save it for the Rajya Sabha, both you and Mr. Jethmalani. Then Singhvi took back the comment.
• Singhvi said that the complainant says that he got the WhatsApp of the newspaper cutting. He does not tell who gave it to him. As per the Evidence Act, the actual incident has not been proved.

What arguments were put forth by the complainant Purnesh Modi?

• Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for the complainant Purnesh Modi in the Rahul Gandhi defamation case. Jethmalani said that there is enough evidence.
• Jethmalani said that CD2 contains the authentic version of (Rahul’s) speech. The person who did the recording on the instructions of the Election Commission is a witness. The photographer holding the camera is also a witness.
• Jethmalani’s argument: What did he (Rahul) say? ‘Okay, a small question, the names of all these thieves, Modi, Modi, how are Modi… Lalit Modi, Nirav Modi… If you search a little more, all other Modis will come out.’ His intention was to insult everyone with the surname Modi because the Prime Minister also has the same surname.
• Justice Gavai said, ‘How many politicians would remember what they had said in previous rallies. Leaders do 10-15 rallies a day. Jethmalani said that when you are an accused, you have to read the charges. He (Rahul) is facing trial.
• Jethmalani: Disqualification on conviction is automatic and immediate. Now there is a demand to bring back what was taken away in the Lily Thomas case… In applications for stay of conviction, there has to be a very clear point.
• The Supreme Court said that it is not about the rights of an individual, it is about the rights of a Member of Parliament. The judge of the trial court has given the maximum sentence, he will also have to explain the reason for it. In his judgement, the judge did not say anything on this.
• Jethmalani said that the Supreme Court had also advised him (Rahul) in the Rafale case. On this, Justice Gavai smiled and said that if this decision had come earlier, he might have been more cautious.
• The issue of the seat of the convicted MP being vacant also came up before the Supreme Court. Jethmalani said that people have no right to elect someone who makes quick sentences, who has broken the law… Singhvi cited a 2007 SC judgment in It is important to keep in mind.