2-year jail term for Rahul Gandhi on ‘Modi surname’ remark: What was the case?
Rahul Gandhi Thursday faced conviction for his alleged derogatory remark made against the surname of Prime Minister Narendra Modi during a rally ahead of Lok Sabha polls in 2019.
Rahul Gandhi was convicted by a Gujarat court Thursday in the 2019 defamation case - his 'all thieves have Modi as the common surname' remark. The comment was made in Karnataka's Kolar district ahead of the 2019 national election and Gandhi was found guilty by a court in Surat in Gujarat, which is prime minister Narendra Modi's home state. The court sentenced Gandhi to two years in jail but he has been released on bail so he can appeal the verdict.
Gandhi was convicted under Section 500 (dealing with defamation) of the Indian Penal Code, under which the individual (who defames another) can be punished with simple imprisonment for a term extending to two years or with fine, or with both.
Rahul Gandhi was present in court when the verdict was announced.
Also Read: Rahul Gandhi renews ‘institutions under attack’ charge, says ‘I won't stop…’
What is the 2019 defamation case?
Ex-Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi filed the criminal case claiming Gandhi had defamed the Modi community by his remark.
Gandhi's remarks followed an earlier reference to fugitive diamond merchant Nirav Modi; "Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi...how come they all have Modi as common surname? How come all the thieves have Modi as the common surname?" the Congress MP had asked.
In 2019, when the case was filed, Rahul Gandhi shrugged it off as a 'desperate' move by his political rivals to 'silence' him.
Any elected representative who is sentenced for any offence for a period of two years or more faces immediate disqualification under the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. One provision of the Act that granted three months’ protection from disqualification was struck down in 2013 as “ultra vires” by the Supreme Court in the Lily Thomas case.
In Gandhi’s case, however, the Surat court that declared him guilty has itself suspended his sentence for 30 days in order to give him an opportunity to challenge its decision on the request on his legal team. This means that Gandhi’s disqualification will kick in after a month, unless he is able to get a stay on the conviction (and not just the sentence) from an appellate court – in this case a sessions court – within that period.
Gandhi cannot directly approach the high court or Supreme Court because his conviction is in a criminal case. However, a third party could move the higher judiciary seeking intervention on the grounds that the procedure and manner of the Surat court’s ruling hurt larger public interest.