Rahul Gandhi defamation case highlights: Supreme Court issues notice on Cong leader's plea, next hearing on Aug 4

It was submitted that the surname ‘Modi’, in different parts of the country, encompassed different communities and sub-communities, which usually have no commonality or uniformity at all. The Modi surname belonged to various castes.

The complainant, Gujarat BJP MLA Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi who simply has a ‘Modi’ surname, did not prove that he was prejudiced or damaged in any specific or personal sense, the plea filed in the apex court added.

The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi and the state government on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's appeal challenging the high court verdict that declined to put on hold his conviction in a defamation case over his "Modi surname" remark.

A bench of Justices B R Gavai and P K Mishra issued notices to Purnesh Modi, who had filed a criminal defamation case in 2019 against Gandhi over his "How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname?" remark made during an election rally at Kolar in Karnataka on April 13, 2019, and the Gujarat government on Gandhi's appeal.

Gandhi’s petition complained that a political speech in the course of democratic political activity, critical of economic offenders, and also of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has been held to be an act of moral turpitude inviting the harshest punishment.

Gandhi’s petition further complained that a political speech in the course of democratic political activity, critical of economic offenders, and also of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, has been held to be an act of moral turpitude inviting the harshest punishment.

“Such a finding is gravely detrimental to democratic free speech in the midst of a political campaign. It is respectfully submitted that the same will set a disastrous precedent wiping out any form of political dialogue or debate which is remotely critical in any manner,” it said.

During the hearing, Singhvi made out a case for an early hearing, pointing out Gandhi has already suffered 111 days as MP and missed out on two parliamentary sessions, including the ongoing Monsoon session. Accepting his request, the bench agreed to hear the case on August 4.

Responding, justice Gavai said: “I felt it was my duty to point it out. You both already know about this. Incidentally, my father was a good friend to your (Singhvi’s) father and his (Jethmalani’s) father as well I even assisted Mr Jethmalani's father in an election matter.”

Justice Gavai added that he even wrote in a judgment that although his family had a family background, it never affected him as a judge.

At the outset of the hearing, Justice Gavai pointed out that his father was associated with Congress for over 40 years though he was not a party member. “He was closely associated with Congress. He became as MP and also a governor with the help of the Congress. My brother is still in politics and associated with Congress. I am disclosing this at the very beginning so as to ask you if you would still want me to hear this case,” the judge asked Singhvi and Jethmalani.

Both the lawyers were quick to respond that they have no issue at all with justice Gavai hearing the matter.

Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Gandhi. Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appeared for the complainant.

During the brief hearing, the court expressed surprise over the high court’s lengthy judgment on the point of staying the conviction. “We don’t understand a lengthy reply in a matter like this. The Gujarat high court penned down over 100-page judgment. It’s peculiar of the high court to write such a lengthy judgment,” observed the bench.

“The whole point right now is whether the conviction has to be stayed or not,” remarked a bench of justices BR Gavai and PK Mishra, as it sought responses from Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Purnesh Modi, who is the complainant in the case, and the Gujarat government.

One month after the Gujarat High Court vacated a stay on the trial in the criminal defamation case against the former legislator in February, a local court in Surat district of Gujarat handed him a conviction and a two years’ jail sentence in March.

Justice Gavai: You (Dr AM Singhvi) and Mr Jethmalani know these facts but all should know.. my father has been associated with your father Mr Singhvi and your father Mr Jethmalani.. one of the election matters I had appeared with Mr Jethmalani as his junior.

Singhvi: We both can file written submissions.. your discretion.. I may need to file a rejoinder to the counter..

Justice Gavai: We can have this on August 4, 2023.

Justice Gavai: There are over 100 pages in order.. so detailed.. what is there to file replies.. this is peculiar we are seeing to Gujarat courts

Jethmalani: We will file in 10 days

SC: Issue notice. Waive notice on behalf of respondent number 1. Mr Jethmalani for respondent 1 seeks 10 days time to file written submissions.

Justice Gavai: Then we issue notice. returnable in two or three weeks

Sr Adv AM Singhvi: the petitioner has suffered for 111 days.. he has lost one parliament session and losing another.. elections to parliament constituency of wayanad would be shortly... Mr Jethmalani would not be concerned by disqualification.. an interim suspension of disqualification can be given

Justice Gavai: We have to hear the other side

Justice BR Gavai: My father was associated.. he was not a congress member.. but he was closely associated.. Mr Singhvi you are with congress for more than 40 years and my brother is still in politics and he is in congress.. Please take a call if you want me to hear this

Singhvi: No problem milord

Respondents: We have no problems

On March 23, a Gujarat magisterial court convicted Gandhi in the case and sentenced him to two years imprisonment, which disqualified him as an MP under the Representation of People Act. He was declared disqualified as MP from Kerala’s Wayanad on March 24, following a notification of the Lok Sabha Secretariat.

Rahul Gandhi, as an interim relief, had sought an ad-interim ex-parte stay of the July 7 order of the Gujarat High court during the pendency of this appeal in the top court.

Supreme Court also issues notice to complainant and Gujarat BJP MLA Purnesh Modi on Rahul Gandhi’s plea and posts the matter for hearing on stay of his conviction on August 4.

Supreme Court issues notice to Gujarat Government and others on the plea of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi challenging the Gujarat High Court order which declined to stay his conviction in the criminal defamation case in which he was sentenced to two years in jail by Surat court over 'Modi surname' remark.

SC to hear Rahul Gandhi's plea to stay the conviction on August 4

Justice Gavai J: Before we start...I must express some difficulties from both sides. My father was associated. Though he was not a Congress member, but he was closely associated.

Supreme Court begins hearing plea against Gujarat High court order.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi sought an urgent hearing and brought the case to the attention of a bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) D Y Chandrachud on July 18, after which the court agreed to hear Gandhi's plea.

In response to a call for a nation-wide protest over the issue of disqualification of the former MP Rahul Gandhi, Congress leaders and members from across the districts of Kalyana Karnataka and Kittur Karnataka staged silent symbolic protests in their respective areas on July 12.