I'm Not Guilty; If I Had to Apologise, Would’ve Done It Earlier: Rahul Gandhi Tells Supreme Court In 'Modi-Surname' Defamation Case

Congress leader and former MP Rahul Gandhi, in his latest affidavit filed in the Supreme Court in his plea to stay the conviction in the criminal defamation case, has asserted that there is no need for him to apologise for the "why all thieves share Modi surname" remark.

"The petitioner maintains and has always maintained that he is not guilty of offence and that the conviction is unsustainable and if he had to apologise and compound the offence, he would have done it much earlier", Gandhi said in response to the complainant calling him "arrogant" for not showing repentance and apologizing for the remark.

"Using the criminal process and the consequences under the Representation of Peoples' Act to arm twist the petitioner into apologising for no fault, is gross abuse of the judicial process and ought not to be countenanced," Gandhi submitted in response.

Gandhi's new affidavit is filed in rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the complainant in the case BJP MLA Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, who has opposed the suspension of conviction.

 Criminal Defamation not a grave offence

Gandhi stated that criminal defamation is not an offence involving moral turpitude. He contended that the rare circumstance of awarding the maximum punishment to him is by itself an "exceptional circumstance" to stay his conviction in the criminal defamation case over the "

He pointed out that defamation is only one of the 22 offences under the IPC which attracts only simple imprisonment as opposed to rigorous imprisonment. Also, the offence is bailable, non-cognizable and compoundable. These factors point out that the offence is not grave.

The award of maximum punishment for such an offence and also the consequent disqualification as MP are exceptional factors which the Court should consider to stay the conviction, he urged. He emphasized his role as a Parliamentarian and leader of the opposition, stressing that it was his duty to critically evaluate the conduct of the ruling establishment. He contended that his speech should be seen in its entirety to ascertain whether there was any intention to defame or not.

The Congress leader stated that the complainant had not heard the speech himself and that he relied on a WhatsApp screenshot of a news article.  

Furthermore, Gandhi raised concerns about an oral witness presented in the case, claiming that this individual was neither mentioned in the complaint nor was known to him. The presence of this witness, who allegedly has strong ties with the political rival party, raised suspicion about potential bias.

Regarding the electronic evidence presented against him, Gandhi submitted that the CDs were not attached to the complaint and lacked proper sealing.  

He submitted that there’s no "Modi Samaj " as such. Modi surname falls under various castes and the respondent himself has admitted that Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi and Mehul Choksi do not fall within the same caste. Therefore, there’s an undefined, amorphous group of people and not an identifiable class of people as portrayed.

He submitted that he is not a previous convict and contended that previous pending cases cannot be used as criminal antecedents relying on Siddharam Mhatre v State of Maharashtra(2011).

He further stated that the respondent won’t suffer any harm if his conviction is stayed. While on the other hand, it’s causing irreparable harm to him since he cannot participate in the ongoing sittings of Lok Sabha.

Gandhi's Rejoinder is drafted by Advocates Prasanna S and Tarannum Cheema, settled by Prashanto Chandra Sen and Rajinder Cheema Senior Advocates and re-settled by Dr A M Singhvi, Senior Advocate.

BACKGROUND OF THE CASE

Congress leader and former MP Rahul Gandhi has been embroiled in a controversy over his ‘why all thieves share the Modi surname’ remark dating back to a political rally at Karnataka’s Kolar in 2019. Accusing Gandhi of defaming everyone with a ‘Modi’ surname, Bharatiya Janata Party MLA and former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 over this alleged remark.

A local court in Surat district of Gujarat handed him a conviction and a two years’ jail sentence in March. Although the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate HH Varma suspended his sentence and granted him bail in the case to move an appeal within 30 days, his conviction was not suspended, and therefore, on the very next day, the former MP representing Kerala’s Wayanad constituency was disqualified as a Lok Sabha member in terms of Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution read with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

In another setback for the former MP, the sessions court dismissed Rahul Gandhi’s application seeking a stay on his conviction in the criminal defamation case, although he was granted bail till the court disposed of his appeal.

Against the ruling of the sessions court, Gandhi filed a criminal revision application. Not only did a bench of Justice Hemant Prachchhak refuse to grant him interim relief, but also ultimately dismissed his petition earlier this month.

Finally, after exhausting all his remedies, the Congress leader moved the Supreme Court challenging the Gujarat High Court’s decision to decline his plea for a stay on his conviction. A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PK Mishra issued notice on his plea and posted the matter for hearing on August 4.

Case Details-Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr.

Citation: Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8644 of 2023