Ahmedabad: A sessions court in Gujarat’s Surat is likely to pronounce its order on Thursday on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plea for a stay on his conviction in a criminal defamation case over his “Modi surname” remark.
A stay order could pave the way for Rahul Gandhi’s reinstatement as a Member of Parliament.
The court of Additional Sessions Judge RP Mogera had last Thursday reserved its verdict for April 20 on Mr Gandhi’s application for a stay on conviction pending his appeal against a lower court’s order sentencing him to two years in jail in the case. Mr Gandhi had earlier submitted that the trial court treated him harshly after being overwhelmingly influenced by his status as an MP.
The 52-year-old politician was elected to the Lok Sabha from Wayanad in Kerala in 2019 but was disqualified a day after a metropolitan magistrate court in Surat on March 23 sentenced him to two years in jail in a case filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Purnesh Modi under sections 499 and 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code.
Rahul Gandhi had on April 3 moved the sessions court against the lower court’s order. His lawyers also filed two applications, one for a stay on the sentence (or bail till the disposal of his appeal) and another for a stay on conviction till the disposal of the appeal.
While granting Mr Gandhi bail, the court issued notices to complainant Purnesh Modi and the state government on his plea for a stay on conviction. It heard both parties on Thursday last week and reserved the order for April 20.
MLA Modi had filed a criminal defamation case against Rahul Gandhi over his remarks, “How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname?” made during an election rally at Kolar in Karnataka on April 13, 2019.
Arguing for Gandhi’s plea for a stay on conviction, his lawyer told the court that the trial in the case was “not fair” and there was no need for maximum punishment in the case.
In his submission, Gandhi said that if the March 23 judgment of the trial court is not suspended and stayed, it will cause irreparable damage to his reputation.
He said the excessive sentence is contrary to the law on the subject and unwarranted in the present case which has overriding political overtones.
