New Delhi: Rahul Gandhi, the disqualified Congress MP, has presented his latest affidavit before the Supreme Court, wherein he refuses to apologise for his statements in the ‘Modi Surname Defamation Case.’ The Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, is currently hearing Rahul Gandhi’s legal challenge against the Gujarat High Court’s July 7 decision to not stay his conviction in the defamation case.
Responding to the affidavit submitted by complainant BJP MLA Purnesh Modi, in which Rahul Gandhi was described as “arrogant,” the Congress leader stated that granting a stay on conviction is a rare occurrence, reserved for extraordinary circumstances. He argues that criminal defamation does not involve moral turpitude and highlights that he has received the maximum sentences possible under the applicable law, which he deems an “exceptional circumstance.”
Rahul Gandhi underscores his role as a parliamentarian and leader of the opposition, asserting that he is obligated to critically assess the conduct of the ruling establishment. He asserts that his entire speech should be examined to determine whether his intent was to defame or not.
Additionally, Rahul Gandhi contends that individuals with the surname ‘Modi’ constitute an undefined and indistinct group rather than an identifiable class. He further states that he is not a prior convict and asserts that pending cases against him cannot be treated as criminal antecedents.
Rahul Gandhi’s affidavit was submitted in response to BJP MLA Purnesh Modi’s affidavit, wherein the complainant argued that Rahul Gandhi’s conviction was based on undeniable evidence. The complainant claims that Gandhi’s remarks defamed all individuals with the ‘Modi’ surname, particularly the Modh Vanik caste in Gujarat. The complainant alleges that Gandhi’s comments were motivated by “personal animosity towards the elected Prime Minister of the nation.”
The complainant also brings up previous instances, including one where the Supreme Court reprimanded Rahul Gandhi for attributing the “chowkidar chor” statement wrongly. The complainant highlights that in that case, Gandhi tendered an unconditional apology to the court. The complainant asserts that Rahul Gandhi’s “arrogant entitlement, lack of sensitivity towards a community, and disregard for the law” should disqualify him from seeking relief.
The complainant further informs the court that the accused, Rahul Gandhi, was the president of a national political party. He contends that if Gandhi chooses to use such defamatory language in a political discourse, there is no justification for branding the entire ‘Modi’ community as thieves simply based on their shared surname with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Discussion about this post