[ad_1]
Rahul Gandhi was elected to the Lok Sabha from Wayanad in Kerala in 2019 but was disqualified on March 23 this year. (File photo: PTI)
Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case: If the Surat court pronounces its order in Gandhi’s favour, he could return to the Lok Sabha and also remain in his official Delhi bungalow — all the privileges that he lost after being disqualified from Parliament
It is an important day for Rahul Gandhi as a sessions court in Gujarat’s Surat will hear his plea that could pave the way for the Congress leader’s reinstatement as a Member of Parliament. Gandhi had moved an application for a stay on his conviction in a criminal defamation case over his “Modi surname” remark.
If the court pronounces its order in Gandhi’s favour, he could return to the Lok Sabha and also remain in his official Delhi bungalow — all the privileges that he lost after being disqualified from Parliament.
The court of Additional Sessions Judge RP Mogera had last Thursday reserved its verdict for April 20 on Gandhi’s application for a stay on conviction pending his appeal against a lower court’s order sentencing him to two years in jail in the case. Gandhi had earlier submitted that the trial court treated him harshly after being overwhelmingly influenced by his status as an MP.
Gandhi had on April 3 moved the sessions court against the lower court’s order. His lawyers also filed two applications, one for a stay on the sentence (or bail till the disposal of his appeal) and another for a stay on conviction till the disposal of the appeal.
While granting Gandhi bail, the court issued notices to complainant Purnesh Modi and the state government on his plea for a stay on conviction. It heard both parties on Thursday last week and reserved the order for April 20.
Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Purnesh Modi had filed a criminal defamation case against Gandhi over his remarks, “How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname?” made during an election rally at Kolar in Karnataka on April 13, 2019.
Arguing for Gandhi’s plea for a stay on conviction, his lawyer told the court that the trial in the case was “not fair” and there was no need for maximum punishment in the case.
In his submission, Gandhi said that if the March 23 judgment of the trial court is not suspended and stayed, it will cause irreparable damage to his reputation.
He said the excessive sentence is contrary to the law on the subject and unwarranted in the present case which has overriding political overtones.
Gandhi termed his conviction as “erroneous” and “patently perverse” and said the trial court treated him harshly after being overwhelmingly influenced by his status as an MP.
“The appellant has been treated harshly at the stage of determination of sentence taking into account his position as a Member of Parliament, hence the far-reaching implications would have been in the knowledge of the trial court,” he said.
The Congress leader said that he was sentenced in a manner so as to attract the order of disqualification because the trial court was well aware of his status as a Parliamentarian.
A bye-election once held in Lok Sabha constituency of Wayanad due to disqualification cannot be undone if his conviction is not stayed even if the court subsequently acquits him,. Such an election will also cause irreparable loss to the state exchequer, Gandhi said.
Opposing his plea, MLA Modi had told the court that Gandhi is a repeat offender with several criminal defamation proceedings against him going on in different courts across the country.
He said that the way Gandhi came to file his appeal shows “extraordinary arrogance” and “a very dirty display of childish arrogance and an immature act of bringing pressure upon the court”. Many Congress leaders had accompanied Gandhi when he went to file his appeal.
He also accused him of making “unfair and contemptuous comments” against the court through his aides, associates, and leaders of his party and others at his behest following his sentencing.
“The accused is in the habit of making such defamatory and irresponsible statements which may either defame others or may hurt the feelings of others, in the name of freedom of speech and political criticism and dissent,” he stated in his affidavit.
(With inputs from PTI)
Read all the Latest India News here
[ad_2]
