Gujarat High Court rejects Rahul Gandhi’s plea for stay on conviction in defamation case

Gandhinagar: The Gujarat High Court today rejected Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plea to stay the conviction in defamation case.

The High Court Justice Hemant Prachchak in his judgment also took note of antecedents and stated that as many as 10 criminal cases are pending against the applicant…. After the filing of the said complaint, another complaint was filed against the said accused. ….by the grandson of Veer Savarkar in a concerned court in Pune where the accused used defamatory utterance against Veer Savarkar, and another complaint was also filed in a concerned court of Lucknow. There’s no reasonable ground to stay conviction…. The order by appellate court is just, proper and legal and do not go forth for any interference.

The Gujarat High Court in its judgment takes note of antecedents, stating that as many as 10 criminal cases are pending against the applicant (Rahul Gandhi)… After filing this complaint, another complaint came to be filed against the accused. ….Out of them one was by the… https://t.co/9w8CFtnh04

— DeshGujarat (@DeshGujarat) July 7, 2023

The stay on conviction could revoke the disqualification of Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha membership. In case of court’s denial to stay the conviction, Rahul continues to remain disqualified as the member of parliament.

While the Metropolitan Magistrate court of Surat convicted Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case, the Sessions court refused to give a stay on conviction. The Gujarat Congress Spokesperson Dr. Amit Nayak has in a message asked party workers to gather at the Gujarat High Court in the connection of the verdict scheduled to be delivered today. Similar messages were given to cadres when the case was in lower courts.

The operative part of the judgment

In this manner, the Supreme Court has highlighted the need, requirement and the constitutional principles involved in understanding the offence of Section 499. In the present case, in order to gauge the seriousness of the offence, another factor which compounds the case against the petitioner is that the defamation alleged was of a large identifiable class and not just an individual. Due to the said fact, the conviction partakes the character of an offence affecting a large section of the public and by definition, the society at large and not just a case of an individual centric defamation case. 

Further, the fact that the petitioner is a senior leader of the oldest political party in India with a large presence and a prominent figure in the realm of the Indian political landscape, also ensures that every utterance of the petitioner automatically gets large scale publicity. In the modern electronic media environment, this large scale publicity is lightning quick, difficult to contain and leaves a permanent imprint in the form of website links, videos, etc. The petitioner is assumed to be aware of the same and being a public personality is vested with the duty to exercise this vast power at his disposal with caution ensuring that dignity and reputation of a large number of persons or any identifiable class is not jeopardised due to his political activities or utterances.

In the present case, in light of the above, the following additional countervailing factors operate against the petitioner which increase the seriousness of the offence in the present facts and circumstances: 

* Defamation is an offence of public character wherein the fundamental right to reputation and dignity is involved; 

* The conviction of the petitioner involves the impairment of the cherished fundamental right to dignity and reputation of a large segment of the population; 

* The public standing of the petitioner and the fact that any utterance of the petitioner attracts large scale publication gravely impairs and damages the reputation of the complainant and the identifiable class in question.

Therefore, the mere fact that the maximum punishment is of two years, would not come to the aid of the petitioner in order to convince the Court to disregard the seriousness of the present offence. The present conviction is a serious matter affecting a large segment of the society and needs to be viewed by this Court with the gravity and significance it commands. 

In fact, the applicant is trying to seek stay of his conviction on absolutely non-existent grounds. It is well-settled principle of law that stay of conviction is not a rule but an exception to be resorted to in rare cases. Disqualification is not limited only to M.Ps/M.L.As. Moreover, as many as ten criminal cases are pending against the applicant. It is now need of the hour to have purity in politics. Representatives of people should be man of clear antecedent. It also appears from the record that after filing of the said complaint, another complaints came to be filed against the present accused, out of which, one complaint was filed by the grandson of Vir Sawarkar in concerned Court of Puna when the accused used defamation utterances against Vir Sawarkar at Cambridge and another complaint was also filed in concerned Court of Lucknow. 

In the backdrop of the said circumstances, refusal to stay the conviction would not, in any way, result in injustice to the applicant. 

In view of the foregoing discussions, in my considered opinion, there is no reasonable ground to stay the conviction of the applicant in the facts and circumstances of the case. The impugned order passed by the appellate court is just, proper and legal and do not call for any interference. However, it is hereby requested to the concerned learned District Judge to decide the criminal appeal on its own merits and in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible.

In view of the above, the present criminal revision application deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. Rule is discharged.