Surat court dismisses Rahul Gandhi's plea to stay conviction in defamation case [Read Order]

A sessions court in Surat on Thursday dismissed a plea by top Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to stay his conviction in a defamation case, affecting his chances to get back his status as Member of Parliament.

It said as the MP and President of the second largest political party and looking to such stature of appellant, he should have been more careful with his words, which would have large impact on the mind of people.

Additional Sessions Judge Robin P Mogera rejected Gandhi's application filed under Sections 389 and 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for staying the conviction imposed by the judgment and order of March 23, 2023 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat.

It pointed out the appellant has failed in demonstrating that by not staying the conviction and denying an opportunity to contest the election on account of disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 an irreversible and irrevocable damage is likely to be caused to him.

"Removal or disqualification as Member of Parliament cannot be termed as irreversible or irreparable loss or damage to the appellant, as envisaged by the Gujarat High Court in Naranbhai Bhikhabhai Kachhadia's case," the court said.

The court said said the apex court has held in numbers of cases that the powers accorded under section 389(1) of CrPC to suspend/stay the conviction is required to be exercised with caution and circumspection.

"If such power is exercised in a casual and mechanical manner, the same would have serious impact on the public perception on the justice delivery systems and such order will shake public confidence in judiciary. Hence, I am of the opinion that the appellant has not made out any case to suspend the conviction recorded against him," the judge wrote in his 27-page order.

Gandhi, who was held guilty for his 2019 remark as to 'why all thieves had Modi Surname', is left with the option to approach the Gujarat High Court.

His lawyers said he won't be arrested and would remain on bail till disposal of his appeal before the sessions court.

In its judgement, the court noted a submission by the complainant that the right to apply for the suspension of conviction pending appeal does not have a force of mandate but is merely a statutorily provided discretionary right present with the court.

The accused therefore, cannot claim the right to suspension of conviction as a right of enforceability. It was also submitted that there are around 12 offences of similar nature registered and pending against the appellant, the court noted.

"It is not disputed fact that the appellant was the Member of Parliament and President of the second largest political party and looking to such stature of appellant he should have been more careful with his words, which would have large impact on the mind of people. Any defamatory words coming from the mouth of Appellant are sufficient enough to cause mental agony to aggrieved person. In this case, by uttering defamatory words viz. comparing persons having surname 'Modi' with thieves would definitely have caused mental agony and harm the reputation of complainant, who is socially active and dealing in public," the court said.

[Read Order]