[BREAKING] Gujarat High Court refuses interim protection to Rahul Gandhi in defamation case; verdict only in June

The Gujarat High Court Tuesday reserved its verdict on a plea filed by Rahul Gandhi seeking stay on his conviction by a Magistrate court in a criminal defamation case against him for his remark "All thieves have Modi surname" [Rahul Gandhi v Purnesh Modi]..Single-judge Justice Hemant Prachchhak refused to pass any interim order in favour of Gandhi and said that he will pronounce the final verdict in the matter after the Court reopens post the summer vacation of the Court.May 5 is the last working day for the High Court and it is slated to reopen on June 5."I will pass the order during the vacations and pronounce it post vacation," Justice Prachchhak said.Gandhi's counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, requested the judge to pass an interim order but the same was declined."I beseech my lords, to take some decision today please," Singhvi said."I made myself clear. I will hear all arguments etc. I will use the vacation time to write the order," the judge maintained.The High Court also ordered the trial court to place before it the original "record and proceedings" of the case..Background.A sessions court in Surat had, on April 20, earlier dismissed Gandhi's plea seeking suspension of his conviction by the Magistrate court.In a detailed order, the sessions court held that Gandhi's disqualification would not amount to be an irreparable or an irreversible loss to him and refused interim relief to him.The now disqualified parliamentarian from Wayanad, Kerala 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 Karnataka's Kolar in 2019.Gandhi had, in his speech linked Prime Minister Narendra Modi with fugitives like Nirav Modi and Lalit Modi.He had said,"Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi. How come all the thieves have 'Modi' as a common surname?".Purnesh Modi, a former BJP Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA), took exception to the said speech claiming that Gandhi humiliated and defamed persons with the Modi surname.The magistrate court in Surat accepted the contention of Modi that by his speech, Gandhi has intentionally insulted the people with a 'Modi' surname.In his 168-page judgment, Judge Hadirash Varma said that since Gandhi is a Member of Parliament (MP), whatever he says will have a greater impact. Thus, he should have exercised restraint, the Magistrate ruled."The accused had taken the reference of the surname of the current Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, to satisfy his political greed and insulted and defamed 13 crore people living in the whole of India having the surname 'Modi'" the judge held.The sessions judge refused to stay the Magistrate court conviction leading to the present plea before the High Court..During the hearing of the matter on April 30, the High Court had observed that Gandhi being the people's representative, he should make statements within limits."In fact, it is his more duty towards the people at large. He is representing the people at large. He must make his statements within limits and bounds," the judge had orally remarked.Gandhi in turn had told the Court that has not committed any grave or heinous offence like murder or any offence involving moral turpitude.Singhvi had also questioned the locus of the complainant Purnesh Modi in filing the complaint in the first place."My case is that this appeal must succeed because law doesn't permit such complaints. Not anyone from the 13 crore people (with Modi surname) can come and file a complaint except the ones named in the speech. It is not even their case that I named Mr. Purnesh Modi," Singhvi had said..Arguments today.During the hearing today, Senior Advocate Nirupam Nanavati, appearing for the complainant, Purnesh Modu pointed out that Gandhi was adopting double standards.While he was saying outside court that he will not back down, his stand inside court was in contradiction to that, Nanavati said."In public, he says, I will speak but in court he has changed his stand. If you are a motormouth you keep speaking. You are well within your right that you don't want to apologise. You are right in saying you won't apologise or say sorry. But then don't make hue and cry over the consequences. Don't cry here in the courtroom like a cry baby saying my career is at stake etc," Nanavati added.He cited a newspaper report according to which Gandhi had said, "My name is Gandhi and I am not Savarkar and won't apologise."Nanavati stated that in the same article, Gandhi was quoted as saying that the disqualification is the best gift the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) could give to him. In that backdrop, he questioned why Gandhi was 'scared' nowNanavati further argued that the Court must consider the seriousness of the offence and its impact on the victim and society at large. He underlined that the Parliament, and not the Court or the victim, disqualified Gandhi based on a law made by the Parliament, and Gandhi could not argue that he is suffering an irreversible loss."We have to maintain sanctity and dignity of the highest institution of our country. If the law bars an individual from being member of Parliament, on his conviction, then they cannot argue against it," he added..Citing the Supreme Court's striking down of section 8(4) Representation of the People Act in Lily Thomas vs Union of India, he argued that the powers under section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) have to be exercised in rarest of rare cases. Gandhi will have to show that the conviction is a frivolous one, he said.."Further, reading statements of witnesses who testified against Gandhi for his remark, he argued that the defamatory sentence covers every Modi. "If you are a motormouth and are facing 12 such cases even today, then you cannot say I am convicted wrongly," Nanavati added.He informed the Court that Gandhi, even after conviction, had not stopped from making comments. .He then referred to Gandhi's statements wherein he told the trial court that he did not remember his speech and that the defamatory line is a false statement. "How can he contradict? On one hand he says he doesn't remember on the other he says it is a false statement," Nanavati questioned.Interestingly, he also highlighted how Gandhi had, in 2013, up an ordinance nullifying the Lily Thomas judgment."In 2013, when his own party decided to bring in an ordinance regarding the Lily Thomas Judgment, for protecting convicted lawmakers. He himself had torn the said document. He did that mistake of tearing that ordinance, had he not, he could have been saved now," Nanavati said..In his rejoinder arguments, Senior Counsel Singhvi said that if the Election Commission declares bye-elections, then Gandhi would stand to lose his seat."What if the Election Commission declares dates for bye-election? The Election Commission is not bound by anyone of us. It isn't bothered if I am arguing here or not. It will declare dates within 3 months or so. Then, even this court won't do anything and I will lose my seat," it was submitted.He said that for an MP, such disqualification is a matter of big significance."Can there be something more irreversible than a disqualification which robs you of your status of being a parliamentarian or an MP? I ask this question to myself. For an MP, it would be a great deal and this should be counted in my favour. I have already missed certain part of the last session. I have missed meetings of Parliamentary Committees, of which, he is part of," he said.Singhvi also underlined that speeches made during election campaign should be treated with greater latitude."The speech given during an election campaign stands on a different footing. But in the heat of moment during an election campaign, the flower of Article 19(1)a needs a fuller bloom. It is a free speech right," he contended.