On Saturday, Gujarat High Court posted the Rahul Gandhi defamation case for consideration on May 2.
Justice Hemant Prachchhak, after hearing six grounds given by Gandhi's counsel senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi to seek a stay on the conviction, said the court will conclude everything on Tuesday, May 2.
The bench, while giving decision post lunch and after intense arguments put forward by Gandhi's counsel, said, "We will conclude everything on Tuesday itself. Won't take more time. Even I am not free after May 5, I am going out of India. so have to conclude all this soon."
The bench also said, "Let the complainant file a reply in the case. We will conclude the hearing on Tuesday." Prior to this Gandhi's advocate Singhvi had said, "There is no need for the complainant to file any reply in the case."
'No identifiable cause'
Appearing for Gandhi, advocate Singhvi argued before the court, that there was no identifiable class at all maintain a complaint. On March 23, a court in Surat had sentenced Gandhi to two years of simple imprisonment in the criminal defamation case over his remarks made during an election rally at Kolar in Karnataka, "Why do all thieves have the surname Modi."
The arguments made by Gandhi's counsel
After reading Purnesh Modi's statements before the Magistrate Court in Surat, Singhvi argued that the complainant had made a mockery of the law. "Allowing this complaint would mean that anybody can come in and file a defamation case, it would make the exceptions redundant." Singhvi was also quoted by the Bar& Bench as saying that the offence was neither of serious nature nor of moral turpitude, the two tests for denying to suspend conviction.
He further listed out the probabilities based on which a case could be filed and pointed out that none applied in this case, "In case of a speech, there will be three probabilities, I myself heard the speech and I was there so I file a complaint. Second is maybe a reporter attended it and file a story, he can depose. Or lastly, some other person, who attended the event can authenticate the speech. None of the witnesses present in this case, are from the above three categories."
'Case would be maintainable had Gandhi named PM Modi'
In order to further back up his argument, Singhvi added that the case would be maintainable had his client specifically mentioned Purnesh Modi. "But here, he has named PM Narendra Modi, which even the Sessions Court in its order had noted that my client defamed PM Modi. So, law mandates PM Modi to file a complaint and not anyone from the so-called 13-crore community."
'Eight years in politics is a long time'
While summarising his submissions Singhvi also said, "If my conviction is not stayed I will stand disqualified for a period which can be said to be virtually semi-permanent period. In politics, it is said even a week's time is long and we are talking about eight years here. I do not deserve this."
The "Magic Witness"
Calling Yaji the "magic witness" Singhi said, Yaji suddenly cropped up in June 2021 and is closely linked with the complainant. "He is as good as the complainant. He is a local BJP member." Yaji was coordinating the polls in 2019 and then Regional Director of BJP in Bangalore.
What the court said?
The court, comprising Justice Hemant Prachchhak remarked that Gandhi while representing the people at large, "must make his statements within limits and bounds."
On April 20, a sessions court in Surat had dismissed Gandhi's plea seeking suspension of his conviction and the two-year jail term following which he was disqualified from the Lok Sabha.
On April 25, Gandhi filed a plea before Gujarat High Court seeking a stay on his conviction on the grounds of disproportionate punishment. His plea also stated that such conviction caused him irreversible damage by way of losing his Lok Sabha membership.
