राजनीति

‘Should have been more careful’ — Surat court order rejecting Rahul Gandhi’s plea for stay on conviction

A Surat court Thursday dismissed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plea seeking a stay on his conviction in a 2019 defamation case, saying “he should have been more careful with his words”, given the fact that he was a Member of Parliament.

Additional sessions judge R.P. Mogera in his 27-page judgment said: “It is not a disputed fact that the Appellant [Gandhi] was the Member of Parliament and President of the second largest political party and looking at the stature of Appellant he should have been more careful with his words, which would have had a large impact on the mind of people. Any defamatory words coming from the mouth of Appellant are sufficient enough to cause mental agony to an aggrieved person.”

On 23 March this year, a Magistrate court Gandhi guilty of criminal defamation for remarks he made at an election rally in 2019 in Karnataka’s Kolar district — “How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname”. He was sentenced to two-years in jail.

However, on 3 April, the District and Sessions court him bail until the hearing of his plea seeking a stay on his conviction. The complaint was filed by Gujarat BJP MLA and former minister Purnesh Modi.

Following his conviction, the Congress MP from Kerala’s Wayanad was immediately under The Representation of The People Act, 1951.

Rejecting the Congress leader’s contention that the conviction had caused him an irreversible harm — his disqualification as a parliamentarian — the Surat sessions judge said that Gandhi’s “defamatory words would have definitely caused mental agony” to the complainant.

“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 the complainant, who is socially active and dealing in public,” judge Mogera said.

Referring to Supreme Court’s judgments in a number of cases, the court rejected Gandhi’s plea to stay his conviction and said, “The powers accorded under section 389(1) of CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure) to suspend/stay the conviction is required to be exercised with caution and circumspection and 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.”

Referring to various top court judgments including the 2007 case involving politician Navjot Singh Sidhu, the court held that an order granting stay of conviction is not a rule but an exception, which should be resorted to in rare cases. The top court had in 2007 suspended Sidhu’s conviction in a 1998 case of road rage to enable him to contest elections.

In May last year, the apex court had reviewed its earlier order not to punish Sidhu, despite finding him guilty in the case, and imposed a one-year imprisonment on him. Earlier this month, Sidhu out of jail after completing his jail term.

Judge Moegra said that SC’s 2007 judgment in the Sidhu case held that a person seeking stay on conviction should specifically draw the attention of the appellate court to the consequences that may arise if the conviction is not stayed.

Referring to Gandhi’s case, the judge said that he has not made out any case to suspend the “conviction recorded against him”.

Unless the attention of the court is drawn to the specific consequences that would follow on account of the conviction, the person convicted cannot obtain an order of stay of conviction adding that grant of stay of conviction can be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the special facts of the case, it said.

Moreover, the court rejected Gandhi’s attempt to draw parallels to Sidhu’s case. It said the incident in Sidhu’s case was not correlated with his public life.

It also observed that the SC had appreciated that Sidhu had chosen to adopt a moral path and had set high standards in public life by resigning from his seat.

“Whereas, in the present case (Gandhi case), the facts are totally different and hence the said judgment would not be helpful to Appellant,” the court said.

On examining other top court verdicts, the sessions judge laid out a test which is required to be established and satisfied by a person, seeking stay of conviction.

According to the judge, the case warranting stay of conviction should be a rare and exceptional case or there should be compelling circumstances that justify the grant of stay.

There should be irreversible consequences leading to injustice and irretrievable damages in the event of non-granting of stay against conviction and there should be no criminal antecedents barring the conviction in question, the judge further added.

In his pleadings, Gandhi had also argued that the trial was “not fair” and there was no need for maximum punishment in the case.

He contended that if the 23 March judgment was not suspended and stayed, it would cause irreparable damage to his reputation (as an MP). He also submitted that the excessive sentence was contrary to the law on the subject and unwarranted in his case — which had overriding political overtones.

Gandhi termed his conviction as “erroneous” and “perverse” and said the trial court treated him harshly after being overwhelmingly influenced by his status as an MP.

The judge said that advocate Mr Tolia (appearing for complainant Purnesh Modi) has submitted that the appellant has miserably failed to show that the judgment of the trial court is so perverse due to which, exceptional case is made out in his favour.

“I hold that the Ld. (Learned) Counsel for the appellant has failed in demonstrating that by not staying the conviction and denying an opportunity to contest the election on account of disqualification u/s. 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 an irreversible and irrevocable damage is likely to be caused to the Appellant,” judge Mogera said.