Gujarat High Court Refuses Interim Protection To Rahul Gandhi In Criminal Defamation Case

The Gujarat High Court has refused to grant interim relief to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in criminal defamation case against him over "All thieves have Modi Surname" remark.

Single-judge Justice Hemant Prachchhak on Tuesday (2 May) refused to pass any interim order in favour of Gandhi and said that he will pronounce the final verdict in the matter after the Court reopens post the summer vacation ends in the first week of June.

In March, a Surat court sentenced Gandhi to two years in prison for criminal defamation in a complaind filed by BJP MLA Purnesh Modi who objected to Gandhi's comments about thieves with the Modi surname.

Justice Prachchhak said the verdict would be delivered after summer vacation.

The High Court will remain closed from 8 May to 4 June, with vacation benches taking up only urgent matters. Justice Prachchhak will be unavailable from 4 May since he will be travelling abroad.

On Tuesday (5 May), he called for records of the defamation trial before the Surat magistrate court for his perusal.

Abhishek Manu Singhvi, the counsel for Gandhi, requested interim relief by was of a stay on the conviction in the period leading up to the final pronouncement of the final verdict after the judge indicated the expected timeline of the verdict.

Justice Prachchhak, however, said he would be passing final orders in the case and refused to grant any interim stay.

One of the opposing lawyers was cited in an Indian Express report as saying that an interim stay on the conviction could have allowed Gandhi to approach the Parliament and seek to be re-instituted to Lok Sabha for the interim period. Meanwhile, Gandhi remains protected from arrest owing to the stay on his sentence and bail.

The High Court, in its order, recorded that “since the court has finally heard the matter, in the interest of justice, the interim protection cannot be granted at this stage. Hence, the request for interim protection is refused.”

On Tuesday, senior counsel Nirupam Nanavati, representing complainant Purnesh Modi, opposed Rahul Gandhi's plea for a stay on conviction, stating that the offence of defamation will be considered as serious since the Parliament while enacting Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act had considering convictions with a sentence of two years or more as serious, thus providing for disqualification.

Nanavati objected to Gandhi's statement that defamation is not a serious offense and neither does it qualify as one of moral turpitude.

According to Nanavati, the only sufferance shown by Gandhi in his petition is the loss of his elected seat and his inability to contest future elections if his conviction isn't stayed. This sufferance, he argues, is a result of Parliamentary legislation, not the court's orders, and therefore cannot be used as a basis for seeking a stay on conviction before the court.