Defamation Case: 3-judge Bench says trial judge gave no reasons for imposing maximum sentence of 2 years in jail
Satya Prakash
New Delhi, August 4
The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in the “Modi surname defamation case”, saying no reasons had been given by the trial judge for imposing the maximum sentence of two-year imprisonment that led to his disqualification as a Lok Sabha MP.
Truth always triumphs
Truth always triumphs, if not today then tomorrow or the day after. I thank people for their support.
Rahul Gandhi, Congress leader
The top court, however, said, “No doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant are not in good taste. A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches.”
Sentencing led to disqualification of MP
Only on account of max sentence of 2 years by trial judge, Section 8 (3) of Representation of People Act came into play (inviting disqualification of MP)
The order – which came from a three-judge Bench led by Justice BR Gavai – paved the way for his reinstatement as a Lok Sabha member representing the Wayanad constituency in Kerala. “Particularly, when an offence is non-cognisable, bailable and compoundable, the least that the trial judge was expected to do was to give some reasons as to why, in the facts and circumstances, he found it necessary to impose the maximum sentence of two years,” the top court said.
Remarks weren’t in good taste
No doubt the alleged utterances by the appellant are not in good taste. A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restrain
— SC Bench
The Bench – which had on July 21 issued notices to Gujarat BJP MLA Purnesh Modi and the state government on Gandhi’s petition against the High Court’s July 7 order refusing to stay his conviction – passed the order after hearing senior counsel AM Singhvi and Mahesh Jethmalani for Rahul and the complainant, respectively.
Not a clean chit
A BJP spokesperson said the SC had only stayed the conviction, not given a clean chit.
Noting that Rahul was already facing 10 criminal cases across India, Justice Hemant Prachchhak of the Gujarat High Court had said there was no reasonable ground to stay the conviction and the magisterial court’s order was “just, proper and legal”.
“Except the admonition given to the appellant (Rahul) by this court in contempt proceedings in Yashwant Sinha and Others v. CBI through its Director and another (for the “chowkidar chor hai” remark against PM Narendra Modi in connection with the Rafale deal), no other reason has been assigned by the learned trial judge while imposing the maximum sentence of two years,” the SC stated.
The Bench noted that “it is only on account of the maximum sentence of two years imposed by the learned trial judge, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, have come into play. Had the sentence been even a day lesser, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act would not have been attracted.”
The top court said, “We are of the considered view that the ramifications of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act are wide-ranging. They not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who have elected him, to represent their constituency.” It lamented that though the Surat Sessions Court and the Gujarat High Court spent voluminous pages while rejecting the application for stay of conviction, all these aspects were not even touched in their orders.
BJP MLA and former minister in Gujarat government Purnesh Modi had filed a criminal defamation case against Rahul over his “How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname?” remark in 2019.
Case over Modi surname remark at Karnataka poll rally in 2019