New Delhi: The Supreme Court will hear on July 21 Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plea challenging the Gujarat High Court order declining to stay his conviction in a criminal defamation case in connection with certain remarks he made in 2019.
Senior Advocate A M Singhvi, appearing for Gandhi, Tuesday mentioned the plea before a bench presided by Chief Justice of India D Y Chandrachud and urged the court to hear it urgently.
CJI Chandrachud then agreed to take it up Friday.
In his plea, Rahul Gandhi said his comment was political satire and not staying the High Court order would lead to throttling of free speech, and set a wrong precedent.
In March, a Surat magisterial court had convicted and sentenced Gandhi to two years in prison, finding him guilty of criminal defamation following a complaint filed by the BJP’s Surat West MLA, Purnesh Modi, who objected to the remarks by the Congress leader in Kolar in April 2019—in the run-up to the Lok Sabha elections.
Following his conviction, Gandhi was disqualified from Lok Sabha where he represented the Wayanad constituency in Kerala.
On July 7, the Gujarat HC declined to stay his conviction, making several observations including that “the offence committed by the accused falls in the category of moral turpitude” and that the “need of the hour” is to “have purity in politics”.
Stating that Gandhi was seeking a stay on his conviction “on absolutely non-existent grounds”, the High Court upheld the April order of the Surat sessions court that declined to stay his conviction.
BJP MLA Purnesh Modi had filed a caveat in the top court seeking to be heard if Gandhi moved a plea challenging the HC verdict on July 7 itself.
In his petition to the Supreme Court, Gandhi said not staying the HC order would contribute to the systematic and repetitive emasculation of democratic institutions and the consequent strangulation of democracy, which would be detrimental to the political climate and future of India.
The Congress leader said his comment was at best political satire, where a linkage was sought to be established between economic offenders and people in powerful positions in the government.
If any political speech which is critical of the government or any other political party, or involves a turn of phrase, becomes an act of moral turpitude, it would completely corrode the foundations of democracy, Gandhi added. His plea said the evidence against him was flimsy and made out a good prima facie case for suspension of conviction. It said the order wrongly holds that an entire community had been defamed by his words.
The most important criterion of the offence of defamation, which is “intention to defame”, has not been proved, he said, adding that a political speech in the course of democratic political activity, critical of economic offenders, has been held to be an act of moral turpitude, inviting the harshest punishment. This is gravely detrimental to democratic free speech and will set a disastrous precedent, wiping out any form of political dialogue or debate which is remotely critical in any manner, he added.
In his order, Gujarat HC Justice Hemant Prachchhak had said representatives of people should be men of “clear antecedent”. Rejecting Rahul’s argument that defamation did not amount to a serious offence like murder, Justice Prachchhak had said, “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…”
According to the SC website, Gandhi filed his appeal through the advocate on record Prasanna S.
Agencies

Press Trust of India