How Rahul Gandhi's Advocate Argued Today In SC In Defamation Case? Highlights

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, representing Gandhi in the 'Modi' surname case, told the Supreme Court that his client is not a hardened criminal and has not been convicted in any of the cases filed against him by BJP workers.

The three-judge bench comprising Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar on Friday stayed his conviction in a 2019 defamation case over his Modi surname remark, paving the way for revival of his Lok Sabha membership.

How He Argued The Case?

The senior advocate said complainant Purnesh Modi's original surname is not 'Modi' and he adopted this surname later. "Not a single of the persons Gandhi had named during his speech has sued. This is a small community of 13 crore people and there is no uniformity, or homogeneity. Who is aggrieved in this community are only people who are BJP office-holders and suing, Singhvi said.

Referring to the earlier verdict in the case by a lower court, Singhvi said the judge treats this as a serious offence involving moral turpitude. "This is non-cognisable, bailable, and compoundable offence. The offence was not against society, not kidnapping, rape, or murder. How can this become an offence involving moral turpitude?" he argued.

"In a democracy we have dissent, in a democracy we have disagreements. What we call 'shaleen bhasha'. Gandhi is not a hardened criminal. There are many cases filed by BJP workers, but there was never any conviction. Gandhi has already missed two sessions of the Parliament," he added.

He argued that the maximum sentence would silence Gandhi for eight years, as it would lead to his disqualification from elections according to the RP Act.

Subsequently, Singhvi pointed out that the conviction's consequence would necessitate the notification of a bye-election for the Wayanad constituency. He expressed concern over having already lost two sessions of Lok Sabha due to the case. If the Supreme Court were to rule against him, he would lose his entire term.

Additionally, he raised doubts about the evidence presented in the case. The complainant did not hear the speech firsthand, and the only sources of information were a WhatsApp message and a newspaper article. The lack of direct evidence of the speech was emphasized. Furthermore, he highlighted that the complainant had previously approached the High Court to suspend the trial, stating the need for gathering evidence. Surprisingly, one year later, the complainant himself got the stay lifted, and shortly after that, the conviction was handed down.

SC Stays Rahul Gandhi's Conviction

After hearing the argument, the three-judge bench said no reason was given by the trial court judge while convicting Gandhi except that he was admonished by the apex court in a contempt case.

The top court had closed the contempt proceedings against Gandhi for wrongly attributing to it his "chowkidar chor hai" remark against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in connection with the Rafale case, with a warning to be more careful in future after the senior Congress leader tendered an unconditional apology, according to a report in PTI.