Rahul Gandhi: In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court of India granted a major relief to Rahul Gandhi by staying his conviction in the Modi Surname Defamation Case. The apex court suspended the conviction, citing the need for clarity on the maximum punishment awarded to Rahul. The court also acknowledged the case as a cognisable offence, emphasising the expectations of greater responsibility from public figures like Rahul.
Congress Celebrates: Victory of Love over Hatred
Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Congress expressed its joy through an official tweet, hailing the verdict as a victory of love against hatred, echoing the motto “Satyamev Jayate – Jai Hind.”
यह नफरत के खिलाफ मोहब्बत की जीत है।
सत्यमेव जयते – जय हिंद 🇮🇳 pic.twitter.com/wSTVU8Bymn
---Advertisement---— Congress (@INCIndia) August 4, 2023
‘Charges Bailable, Defamation Not Justified’: Abhishek Manu Singhvi
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing Rahul Gandhi, argued that the charges against his client are bailable and that there is no specific identified class of people with the Modi surname. He pointed out that various castes use the Modi surname, making the defamation case against Rahul unjustified. Singhvi emphasized that none of the individuals mentioned in Rahul’s speech sued him, and the complainant, Purnesh Modi, was not even named in the speech.
Purnesh Modi’s Lawyer Counters
On the other side, Purnesh Modi’s lawyer, Mahesh Jethmalani, presented evidence against Rahul Gandhi, stating that the intention behind Rahul’s speech was to insult the entire Modi surname community. He argued that Rahul’s words targeted the Prime Minister of the country as well, thus making it a case of double defamation. Jethmalani asserted that the entire community with the Modi surname was defamed, forming a certain class.
SC’s Decision: Conviction Stayed, Further Consideration Ongoing
The Supreme Court’s stay on Rahul Gandhi’s conviction has provided temporary relief. The court clarified that it is currently not considering the merits of the case, but solely focusing on whether the conviction should be stayed or not. The case remains under consideration, and further details will be revealed in due course.
