Supreme Court stays Rahul Gandhi's conviction in Modi surname defamation case

By Lokmat English Desk | Updated: August 4, 2023 14:07 IST2023-08-04T14:06:38+5:302023-08-04T14:07:28+5:30

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case over his ...

Supreme Court stays Rahul Gandhi's conviction in Modi surname defamation case | Supreme Court stays Rahul Gandhi's conviction in Modi surname defamation case

Supreme Court stays Rahul Gandhi's conviction in Modi surname defamation case

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed the conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case over his 'Modi surname' remark. The top court is hearing a plea by Gandhi challenging the Gujarat High Court verdict which dismissed his plea seeking a stay on his conviction. The apex court cited, there was no reasons given by trial judge in giving the maximum punishment of two years. Disqualification affects not only Gandhi but also the electorates of his constituency, it added. However, the top court also cautioned that Gandhi should have been more careful in making the alleged remarks. 

On Friday, SC heard a plea by Rahul Gandhi challenging Gujarat HC high verdict that declined to put on hold his conviction in a defamation case over his "Modi surname" remark. Earlier this year, Rahul Gandhi was disqualified as an MP for his comments linked to PM Modi. Abhishek Manu Singhvi , who appeared for Rahul Gandhi at the Supreme Court, said, ‘No one was named by Rahul Gandhi in his speech’The trial court cites 13 cases, but where are the convictions. Where are the criminal anecdotes, he tell Supreme Court. ‘Have no criminal antecedents, no conviction in cases filed by BJP workers.' Meanwhile, Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani appearing for complainant Purnesh Modi argues that the entire speech spanned over 50 minutes and there is plethora of evidence and clipping of the speech attached in Election Commission of India’s record.Jethmalani says that Rahul Gandhi has defamed an entire class out of malice.Responding to the arguments, SC said the conviction is also affecting the constituency.
 

Open in app