Gujarat HC upholds Rahul Gandhi's defamation conviction

On Friday, the Gujarat High Court rejected Rahul Gandhi's plea to quash the defamation case against him for his remarks on the "Modi" surname. The case was filed by a former BJP MLA Purnesh Modi, who had claimed that Rahul Gandhi had defamed Prime Minister Narendra Modi by saying "Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi. How come all the thieves have 'Modi' as a common surname?" during a public rally in Karnataka in April 2019. The court had observed that prima facie, the case was not frivolous and hence, refused to stay the proceedings against Rahul Gandhi.

Single-judge Justice Hemant Prachchhak said that staying conviction is not a rule and the same must only be exercised in rare cases.

"At least 10 criminal cases pending against him. Even after the present case, some more cases filed against him. Representatives of people should remain of clear character. One such is filed by grandson of Veer Savarkar in a court in Pune as accused used defamational (sic) terms against Veer Savarkar in Cambridge. In another case, complaints was also filed in a court in Lucknow," the judge said.

In addition to the above information, it is worth noting that Rahul Gandhi had moved the Gujarat High Court seeking to quash the defamation case against him. He had argued that his statement was made in the heat of political campaigning and that it was not intended to defame anyone. However, the court rejected his plea and observed that the allegations made by the complainant were serious in nature and that the case was not frivolous.

After the court's decision, Rahul Gandhi had to appear before a magistrate court in Surat, Gujarat, to face trial in the defamation case. The trial had commenced in October 2019, and Rahul Gandhi had pleaded not guilty to the charges. The trial had been ongoing, and the court was expected to hear further arguments from both sides before delivering its verdict.

It is worth noting that the case generated significant media attention, as Rahul Gandhi made the statement against the backdrop of the 2019 general elections in India. The case also sparked a debate on the limits of free speech in political campaigning and the right to criticize public figures.