'Modi surname' defamation case: SC puts Rahul Gandhi's conviction on hold

Supreme Court on Friday, in an interim order, stayed the conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in the criminal defamation case over 'Modi surname' remark.

"There is no doubt that utterances are not in good taste, person in public life is expected to exercise caution while making public speeches," said Supreme Court. "As observed by this court while accepting his affidavit in the contempt petition, he (Rahul Gandhi) ought to have been more careful," the apex court said. 

Rahul Gandhi on Friday told the Supreme Court that the original surname of former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi, who filed a defamation case against him, is not Modi and he belongs to the Modh Vanika Samaj.

Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi, appearing for Gandhi, told a three-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, P S Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar that his client is not a hardened criminal and there is no conviction in any case despite several cases filed against him by BJP workers. The top court was hearing a plea by Gandhi challenging the Gujarat High Court verdict which dismissed his plea seeking a stay on his conviction in a defamation case over his ''Modi surname'' remark. Purnesh Modi had filed a criminal defamation case in 2019 against Gandhi over his ''How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname?'' remark made during an election rally in Kolar in Karnataka on April 13, 2019.

He was convicted and sentenced to two years in prison by a Surat court on March 23. Gandhi also lost his parliamentary seat following the conviction, since lawmakers sentenced to jail terms of two years or more are automatically disqualified.

Lower courts and the high court in Gujarat had rejected appeals by Gandhi to suspend the conviction, causing him to appeal to the Supreme Court.

On Friday, Supreme Court, while granting relief to Rahul Gandhi, said ramifications of the trial court’s order are wide. "Not only was Gandhi’s right to continue in public life affected but also that of the electorate who elected him," the apex court said.

Supreme Court said no reason has been given by trial court judge for imposing maximum sentence and that order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication.