Lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani Says Rahul Gandhi Is Still A Convict, Despite SC Stay

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi received some relief on Friday as the Supreme Court of India stayed the conviction order by the Gujarat High Court in the Modi Surname Remark Case. Although the apex court stayed the conviction order, it did not adjudicate on the conviction itself.

Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, representing the complainant Purnesh Modi, stated that in the eyes of the law, Rahul Gandhi is still considered a convict, despite the Court's stay on the conviction. The three-judge bench that granted relief to Gandhi noted that the trial court judge had not provided sufficient reasons for imposing the two-year punishment in the defamation case. The apex court emphasized that adequate reasons should have been given for the maximum punishment.

Jethmalani clarified that the 'stay' means that the consequences of conviction, such as disqualification, will be put on hold due to insufficient reasons provided for the sentence. However, there will be an appeal in the sessions court, and the ruling of the magistrates' court regarding both conviction and sentencing remains valid.

After the Supreme Court's order, the Lok Sabha speaker can reinstate Rahul Gandhi's membership on his own, or Rahul Gandhi, armed with the apex court order, can seek restoration of his status as an MP.

Purnesh Modi had filed a criminal defamation case against Rahul Gandhi in 2019 over his remark, "How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname?" made during an election rally in Kolar, Karnataka, on April 13, 2019.

Previously, Rahul Gandhi was disqualified as a Member of Parliament on March 24, after a Gujarat court convicted him and sentenced him to two years in jail for criminal defamation concerning the Modi surname comment. The high court had dismissed his petition for a stay on the conviction, emphasizing the need for "purity in politics."

A metropolitan magistrate's court in Surat had sentenced Rahul Gandhi to two years in jail under IPC sections 499 and 500 (criminal defamation), leading to his disqualification as an MP under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act.