Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, in his appeal before the Surat district and sessions court, termed his conviction in the 2019 criminal defamation case “erroneous”, and submitted that he was “treated harshly” by the trial court which was “overwhelmingly influenced” by his status as a Member of Parliament (MP), reported PTI.
Gandhi further maintained that there is no such thing as a definite Modi samaj or community on record.
In his application seeking the suspension of conviction, which will come up for hearing on April 13, the former Congress president said, “It appears reasonable to argue that the applicant was really sentenced in a manner so as to attract the order of disqualification (as an MP).”
“The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the CJM (Chief Judicial Magistrate) is erroneous, patently perverse, in flagrant violation of principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal trial, illegal and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the evidence to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant/accused,” said Gandhi in his petition in the sessions court.
Earlier, in the day, Gandhi had reached Surat, along with his sister and Congress general secretary Priyanka Gandhi Vadra, and Additional Sessions Judge RP Mogera’s court granted him bail till the disposal of his appeal on a bond of Rs 15,000.
On March 23, Gandhi was convicted by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate H H Varma and sentenced to two years in jail for his election campaign speech on April 13, 2019, where he made a remark on “Modi surname”. The case was filed by BJP leader Purnesh Modi. A day later, he was disqualified as a Lok Sabha member under provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and his Wayanad Lok Sabha seat in Kerala was declared vacant.
Gandhi, in his plea filed through his lawyer, submitted that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence was passed without any evidence, and was done on the basis of assumptions, presumptions, conjectures, surmises and suppositions which are not permissible in the criminal law at all.
The order of conviction and sentence was bad in law and against the weight of evidence, and the trial judge was “overwhelmingly influenced” by his status as an MP, he said. In such a case, he (trial judge) certainly presumed that the award of maximum sentence of two years would entail his disqualification as a Member of Parliament, it read.
“Parliamentarian, in Opposition, is expected or rather required to be ‘vigilant and critical’, and the view of the trial court that a Member of Parliament deserves to be awarded the highest punishment because of his status “is wholly unwarranted and manifestly unjust,” said the four-time MP in his plea.
By the very nature of his task, a politician in Opposition cannot always weigh his words in golden scales, he said, adding, “Hence, it is incumbent upon courts to focus on the essence and spirit of the speech (related to Modi surname) made rather than on the tone and tenor.”
He said “a strong and uncompromising opposition” is the essential requirement of a “true and healthy democracy.”
“While performing his duties as a critic of the government, a Member of the Legislature, is very likely to cause annoyance and/or embarrassment to those in power,” Gandhi stated.
When the magistrate’s court took the view that he deserved to be awarded the highest punishment because of being a Member of Parliament, it is expected that the judge would also be aware of the mandatory disqualification that it entails, Gandhi said.
“Such disqualification entails the rejection of the mandate of the electorate on one hand and huge burden on the exchequer on the other (for holding bypoll),” said the Congress leader.
The 52-year-old Congress leader maintained that the said sentence, “Why all thieves have surname Modi,” was spoken in connection with PM Modi, Nirav Modi and Lalit Modi, and not people with the “Modi” surname. Barring this sentence, all the alleged defamatory comments are against PM Modi personally, the Congress leader said in the plea, adding there is no such thing as Modi samaj or community on record.
He said the complainant (MLA Purnesh Modi) terms the Modh Vanik Samaj or Modh Gachi Samaj or Teli Gachi Samaj as Modi samaj, even when there is no documentary evidence on record that they are all part of the Modi samaj.
Even otherwise, a Modi Samaj is “not an identifiable, determinate, definite group,” Gandhi said.
“There are Modis in every community. There is no organization of persons having the surname Modi. There is no particular group of Modis which is referred to in the impugned defamatory statement as distinguished from the rest of the Modis,” he said.
“Modis are 13 crores (in number), and all these people will not have a right to file the complaint because it is not an identifiable, definite, determinate group or collection of persons,” Gandhi said.
Gandhi further submitted that the defamation complaint was filed in “hot haste”, adding that the it was “motivated by political considerations”.
(With inputs from PTI)