Defamation Case: 'Consequences Irreversible, Will Lose 8 Yrs Of Political Career If Conviction Not Stayed': Sr. Adv. Abhishek Singhvi In Gujarat HC For Rahul Gandhi

Appearing before the Gujarat High Court for Congress leader and disqualified MP Rahul Gandhi in his criminal revision plea filed seeking a stay on his conviction in the 'Modi-Thieves' remark case, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi today argued that non-stay on conviction will have irreversible consequences for Gandhi and that he would stand disqualified for a period of 8 years that can be said to be virtually semi-permanent period.Senior Advocate Sighvi strongly argued before the bench of Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak that the alleged offence did not involve the element of moral turpitude, it was a non-cognizable, bailable and non-serious offence and therefore, the conviction should be suspended. He also argued that in many cases concerning much more serious offences, the Courts have stayed the conviction.Importantly, he also argued as to how Gandhi's disqualification and non-stay on his conviction in the defamation case would affect not just his prospects as a parliamentarian, but even the interests of the people of the constituency, he is representing, would be adversely affected. "My missing sessions in the parliament entails a consequence that I am unable to raise my voice, the people of the constituency lose their rights to get their voices raised in the parliament. It is also determinantal to the public interest of the country that the Parliament is missing one of the many voices," he argued.He also submitted that moving ahead, if Gandhi's appeal is allowed after 5-6 months, how will my losses be restored? "It will be an irreversible loss. Suppose, meanwhile if the Election Commission notifies by-election and someone else gets elected, later on, if I win the appeal, the situation is irreversible. I could not contest the by-election, but that doesn't mean I lost the election, but the person elected can't be unseated. Even Election Petitions won't help me," he contended.However, during the course of the hearing, the bench of Justice Prachchhak did observe that Gandhi has more duty towards the people at large as he is representing the people at large and hence, his statements must be within limits and boundsIt may be noted that Gandhi has moved the High Court challenging the Surat Sessions Court April 20th order dismissing his application seeking a stay on his conviction. It may be recalled that on March 23, the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate sentenced Gandhi to two years in jail over his remark “why all thieves share the Modi surname” made during a political campaign in Karol in April 2019, following which he was disqualified as MP of Lok Sabha. The matter before the High Court assumes significance as if the petition of Gandhi is allowed, it could pave the way for Gandhi's reinstatement as a Member of Parliament, subject to a notification issued in this regard by the Loksabha secretariat."No identifiable class of Modi community"Appearing before the bench of Justice Hemant M. Prachchhak, Senior Advocate Singhvi, at the outset, argued that the complaint, filed by BJP MLA Purnesh Modi was itself not maintainable as it did not refer to an identifiable class of people having the Modi surname. He added that none of the three people named in the statement (Nirav Modi, Mehul Choksi and Vijay Mallya) had moved any complaint against Gandhi.He argued that anyone from a non-identifiable class can not come to the Court and file a complaint for an allegedly defamatory statement purportedly directed towards a community."The complainant says in his complaint that I am filing the complaint because I belong to the Modi community and it says that in Gandhi's utterances, 13 crore people of the community are hurt...If I say that XYZ community is bad, anyone belonging to that community can't come and file the case against me, it is the law...Anyone from the so-called community of 13 crore people can not come and file a complaint against me, except the ones who were named by me in the speech. In fact, I did not name Complainant (Purnesh Modi)," Senior Advocate Singhvi argued before the High Court.In this regard, Senior Advocate Singhvi also referred to several Supreme Court rulings which stress the need to have an identifiable class of citizens to hold a defamation complaint as maintanble. He relied upon Narottamdas L. Shah vs Patel Maganbhai Revabhai And Anr. and Subramanian Swamy vs Union Of India, Min. Of Law wherein it was held that In case the identity of the collection of persons is not established so as to be relatable to the defamatory words or imputations, the complaint in that regard is not maintainable.Senior Advocate Singhvi also submitted before the Court that during his deposition before the Trial Court, the Complainant Purnes Modi had admitted that the Modi surname doesn't mean that it belongs to a certain community."Prime Minister is not involved in the case, he has not filed the case. He is certainly an identifiable class...The complainant says that the Accused (Rahul Gandhi) didn't take his name. If...

Defamation Case: 'Consequences Irreversible, Will Lose 8 Yrs Of Political Career If Conviction Not Stayed': Sr. Adv. Abhishek Singhvi In Gujarat HC For Rahul Gandhi

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags