Five grounds on which Gujarat High Court

refused to stay conviction of Rahul Gandhi

in defamation case [READ JUDGMENT]
The Court in its 123-page-long judgment underlined grounds against Gandhi which
Satyendra Wankhade
Published on : 
7 Jul, 2023, 6:06 pm
5 min read
The Gujarat High Court on Friday delivered its verdict on the plea by Congress leader Rahul
Gandhi against the conviction and two-year jail term imposed on him by a Magistrate court
in a criminal defamation case for his remark on 'Modi' surname. [Rahul Gandhi v Purnesh
Modi]

Single-judge Justice Hemant Prachchhak determined that no case was made out to stay the
conviction.

"In anyway, conviction would not result in any injustice to the applicant. The conviction
order is just, proper and legal. There is no need to interfere with the said order. Therefore,
the application is dismissed," the Court held.

The Court in its 123-page-long judgment underlined grounds against Gandhi which increased
the seriousness of the offence.

Below are five grounds on which the Court denied relief to Gandhi.

Defamation a serious offence of public character involving fundamental right to

reputation and dignity

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, the
High Court underlined that reputation as a concept has been recognised to be an important
part of the personality of a person and has become a fundamental right.

The Court said that the offence under Section 499 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code
(IPC) can be considered to be a serious offence having a large public character which affects
the society at large in a case wherein a large number of persons of the society have been
defamed.

Gandhi's conviction impairs right to dignity and reputation of large population

Taking into account that the alleged defamation was of a large identifiable class (people with
Modi surname) and not just an individual, the Court determined that the conviction partakes
the character of an offence affecting a large section of the public and by definition, the
society at large and not just a case of an individual-centric defamation case.

Gandhi's public standing attracts large scale publication

Further, the Court noted that Gandhi is a senior leader of the oldest political party in India
with a large presence and a prominent figure in the realm of the Indian political landscape.
Due to Gandhi's public standing, any utterance by him attracts large scale publication gravely
impairs and damages the reputation of the complainant and the identifiable class in question.

"Therefore, the mere fact that the maximum punishment is of two years, would not come to
the aid of the petitioner in order to convince the Court to disregard the seriousness of the
present offence. The present conviction is a serious matter affecting a large segment of the
society and needs to be viewed by this Court with the gravity and significance it
commands," the Court opined.

Stay of conviction is not a rule but an exception to be resorted to in rare cases

The Court underlined that Gandhi was trying to seek stay of his conviction on non-existent
grounds and it is a well-settled principle of law that stay of conviction is not a rule but an
exception to be resorted to in rare cases.

"In fact, the applicant is trying to seek stay of his conviction on absolutely non-existent
grounds. It is well-settled principle of law that stay of conviction is not a rule but an
exception to be resorted to in rare cases. Disqualification is not limited only to MPs/
MLAs," the judgment stated.

Ten criminal cases are pending against Gandhi including by grandson of Vinayak
Damodar Savarkar

The Court further highlighted that as many as ten criminal cases are pending against Gandhi.

It said that the need of the hour it to have purity in politics and that representatives of people
should be persons of clear antecedent.

The Court also noted that after filing of the complaint, more complaints were filed against
Gandhi out of which one was filed by Vinayak Damodar Savarkar's grandson for Gandhi's
alleged remarks against Savarkar at Cambridge.

"It also appears from the record that after filing of the said complaint, another complaints
came to be filed against the present accused, out of which, one complaint was filed by the
grandson of Vir Savarkar in concerned Court of Puna when the accused used defamation
utterances against Vir Savarkar at Cambridge and another complaint was also filed in
concerned Court of Lucknow," the Court noted.

In the backdrop of these circumstances, the Court held that refusal to stay the conviction
would not cause injustice to Gandhi.

Hence, the Court concluded that there was no reasonable ground to stay the conviction.
However, it requested the District Judge to decide the criminal appeal on its own merits and
in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

"Will move Supreme Court": Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi

Speaking at a press conference, Congress leader, parliamentarian and Senior

Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who represented Gandhi, expressed his disappointment
at the judgment though he said that the same was "not unexpected".

He termed the jurisprudence in the judgment 'unique' as, according to him, it has no parallel
or relevance to the law of defamation in India.
He emphasized that the core legal issue of whether an undefined amorphous group can claim
injury was not addressed by the High Court.

"It is disappointing but not an unexpected judgment. We waited 66 days for the judgment.
The jurisprudence found in this judgment is unique since it has no parallel or relevance to
the law of defamation in India. Core Legal issue is whether an undefined amorphous group.
How on earth can this be group be described as 13 crores and claim defamation. Gujarat
HC has no answered this question," he stated.

Further, he questioned why legislators prescribed only a two year maximum punishment for
defamation if it was that serious an offence.