Modi surname defamation case: Will Rahul Gandhi return to Parliament on Monday?

Rahul Gandhi must be heaving a huge sigh of relief. The Supreme Court has stayed the Congress leader’s conviction in the 2019 Modi defamation case, which had led to his disqualification as a sitting member of Parliament – he was previously the MP from Wayanad.

Just minutes after the top court’s reprieve, the party tweeted: “It is a victory of love against hate. Satyamev Jayate – Jai Hind.”

The stay on the conviction by a three-judge bench – Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar – said that the utterances were not in good taste and that a person in public life is expected to exercise caution while making public speeches.

However, it added, “No reason has been given by the trial judge for imposing maximum sentence, the order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication.”

What was the defamation case all about? What did the Supreme Court say today? And most importantly what does this mean for Rahul Gandhi’s future?

Also read: Modi surname defamation case: How Priyanka Gandhi and Mallikarjun Kharge reacted to SC’s verdict

We simplify it all and get you the answers.

What is the defamation case against Rahul Gandhi?

All this legal drama emerges from a 2019 defamation case filed by Purnesh Modi – a BJP MLA and ex-Gujarat minister. Purnesh had then filed a defamation case, under IPC sections 499, 500 and 504, against the former Congress party chief, Rahul Gandhi, for a comment that he made during at a campaign during the 2019 Lok Sabha general elections.

The case stated that Gandhi at an election rally at Kolar in Karnataka on April 13, 2019 had said, “Why all the thieves, be it Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi or Narendra Modi, have Modi in their names”.

The complainant held that Gandhi had defamed all people whose surname is Modi. According to rough estimates, there are about 130 million people in India who carry the surname.

On 10 October of that year, Rahul Gandhi appeared before the court and pleaded not guilty in the matter. In March 2022, the Gujarat High Court had stayed the proceedings in the case after the complainant sought a stay citing lack of sufficient evidence.

The stay was then lifted in February this year after Purnesh Modi told the High Court that there was sufficient evidence such as CDs and pen drives that had come on record of the trial court. During the course of the case, Rahul Gandhi’s lawyer, Babu Mangukiya, argued that it should have been Prime Minister Narendra Modi and not Purnesh Modi to have been the complainant in the matter as the prime minister was the main target of the Congress leader’s speech.

On 23 March, this year, Surat’s court found Gandhi guilty of defamation and sentenced him to two years in prison. The court approved Gandhi’s bail on a surety of Rs 15,000 and suspended the sentence for 30 days to allow him to appeal.

The two-year sentence led to the disqualification of Gandhi as an MP, under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act.

Following the court’s verdict, Rahul approached the Surat Sessions Court in April 2023, seeking suspension of sentencing and a stay on the conviction pending his appeal. However, the sessions court granted him bail but refused to stay the conviction. Gandhi then approached the high court, seeking a stay on his conviction. But, on 7 July, the court provided the Congress leader with no relief and dismissed his plea.

It was only after all this that Rahul on 15 July moved the top court challenging the decision of the court in the matter.

What did the court say today?

Appearing for Rahul Gandhi in court today, counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi contended that that the complainant BJP MLA Purnesh Modi belongs to the Modh Vanika Samaj which includes other communities as well.

He argued that the class of persons sharing Modi surname is not an identifiable class within the meaning of Section 499/500 IPC who can file a defamation complaint. He also highlighted that it was an extreme rarity that a court awards a maximum sentence of two years in a criminal defamation matter. “I am yet to see a non-cognisable, bail and compoundable offence, which is not against society, which is not kidnapping, rape and murder, in which the maximum sentence is given. How can this become an offence involving moral turpitude?” Singhvi stated, as per a LiveLaw report. He further also said that Rahul was “not a hardened criminal”.

After hearing the arguments, the three-judge bench provided their order, staying the conviction. The apex court judges in their order raised concerns as to why the trial judge had awarded the maximum sentence of two years and didn’t even provide sufficient reasons for it. The court criticised the lack of explanation, stating, “The trial court was expected to give some reasons on why he gave the maximum punishment of two years.”

While pronouncing the verdict, Justice BR Gavai also noted that the ramifications of Gandhi’s conviction are wide since it will also affect the right of the electorates who elected him. “You are not only affecting the right of one individual but an entire electorate of a constituency,” Justice Gavai said, as per Bar and Bench.

What does the future hold for Rahul Gandhi?

With the Supreme Court’s ruling, Rahul Gandhi’s status as a Member of Parliament stands restored. Moreover, he can contest the 2024 general elections.

And shortly after the decision, Congress MP Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said that he had met the Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla and asked him to immediately restore Rahul status as an MP, so he could take part in the no-confidence motion proceedings on 8 and 10 August. “We have met the Lok Sabha Speaker and asked him that Rahul Gandhi’s membership must be restored so that he can take part in no-confidence motion proceedings,” he was quoted as saying.

In fact, according to an Hindustan Times report, Rahul could return to Parliament as early as Monday (7 August).

And the Congress gearing up for such a moment already posted an image of Rahul Gandhi on Twitter, now rebranded as X, saying, “Main aa raha hoon. Sawaal jari rahoonga. (I am coming back. Question will continue.”

With inputs from agencies