On May 2, Gujarat High Court reserved an order in the defamation case, refused to give any interim relief to the Congress leader and disqualified MP Rahul Gandhi. During the hearing, Gandhi’s please in the matter related to his “Modi surname” remark, Justice Hemant Prachchhak said it was in the interest and fitness of the case that the matter be decided finally.
J Prachchhak passes order: It is in the interest and fitness of the case, that the matter be decided finally and no interim protection be granted at this stage. Hence, the matter is kept for final judgment post summer vacations. #RahulGandhi #GujaratHighCourt #modisurname…
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023
The court did not give interim protection to the disqualified MP and kept the matter for final judgment post-summer vacations. Before the hearing commenced, Justice Prachchhak had made it clear he would use his vacation time to write the judgment and pass it after he resumes office post-summer vacation. The judgment will come only after June 4.
Notably, the former Congress MP had sought an interim stay on his conviction and sentence awarded by the Gujarat Court on March 23 under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code for criminal defamation. The judgment was passed in the case filed by BJP leader Purnesh Modi over the remarks passed by Gandhi in April 2019 against people with the Modi surname.
Earlier, the matter was to be heard by Justice Gita Gopi, but she rescued herself from hearing on April 26. The case was then transferred to Justice Prachchhak.
Senior Advocate Nirupam Nanavati appeared for Punesh Modi, who was the complainant. He told the court that the court should consider the seriousness of the offence and its impact on the victim and society.
Senior Advocate Nirupam Nanavati for complainant Purnesh Modi makes submissions.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023
Modi: The Court has to consider the seriousness of the offence and what is its impact on the victim and the society at large.
One who is convicted and ordered to suffer sentence of 2 years or…
Nanavati further noted that the disqualification came from the judgment as per the law. Neither court nor Parliament disqualified Gandhi. He was disqualified from the post of MP because the law states that if a lawmaker gets convicted and sentenced to two years, he or she will be automatically disqualified from the house.
Nanavati: Court has not disqualified you the Parliament has disqualified you. Neither the complainant has disqualified you so you cannot argue that you are suffering an irreversible loss. That is the law made by the Parliament itself.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023
So the seriousness of the offence need not…
Nanavati pointed out that in the Lily Thomas vs Union of India matter, the Supreme Court had struck down section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act that protected convicted lawmakers from disqualification. The then-Congress government brought an ordinance against the judgment, but Rahul Gandhi himself tore it. Nanavati said, “He made that mistake of tearing that Ordinance, had he not, he could have been saved now.”
Nanavati adds: 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.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023
He did that mistake of tearing that Ordinance, had he not, he could have been saved now.…
Calling Gandhi a “motormouth”, Nanavati pointed out that he was a repeat offender. Despite a warning from the Supreme Court in “Chowkidar Chor hai” remarks, he has not stopped making allegedly defamatory comments.
Nanavati reads from orders of Supreme Court in the contempt of court case, wherein Gandhi was pulled up for attributing "Chowkidar hi Chor hai" comment to the Top Court.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023
So now this word of caution saying "beware of your utterances, be careful you are a senior leader" yet he…
He noted how Rahul Gandhi repeatedly used derogatory remarks against Veer Savarkar in his statements. He cited Gandhi’s statement when he said, “My name is Gandhi, and I am not Savarkar and won’t apologise.” Notably, Congress’s allies have asked him not to attack Savarkar in his statements.
Nanavati: Even after his conviction he hasn't stopped from making comments.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023
Cites a newspaper report. Reads, "He has said, My name is Gandhi and I am not Savarkar and won't apologise."
He has said that, in the news article, that they (BJP) has given me the best gift ever, so…
Public Prosecutor Mitesh Amin, who was representing the Gujarat Government, said, “Duty of the lawmakers is to uphold the law, but the present appellant himself is breaking the laws. This makes the case more serious. The legislator’s function is to legislate, but he isn’t doing that.”
Now Public Prosecutor Mitesh Amin, who represents the Gujarat Government makes submissions.
— Bar & Bench (@barandbench) May 2, 2023
Amin: Duty of the lawmakers is to uphold the law but the present appellant himself is breaking the laws. This makes the case more serious. The function of the legislator is to legislate…
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi requested the court to provide interim relief, but the court refused.
