The Gujarat High Court refused to stay the conviction of Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case based on the following five grounds:

1. Defamation as a serious offense: The Court emphasized that defamation is a serious offense with a public character, involving the fundamental right to reputation and dignity. It cited the Supreme Court's judgment in Subramanian Swamy Vs. Union of India, which recognizes reputation as an important part of a person's personality and a fundamental right. The Court considered the offense of defamation to be serious when a large number of persons in society have been defamed.

2. Impairment of the right to dignity and reputation: The Court noted that Gandhi's conviction impaired the right to dignity and reputation not only of an individual but also of a large identifiable class (people with the surname "Modi"). It viewed the defamation as affecting a large section of the public and society at large, rather than being limited to an individual-centric defamation case.

3. Public standing and large-scale publication: The Court acknowledged that Rahul Gandhi is a senior leader of the oldest political party in India and a prominent figure in the Indian political landscape. It highlighted that due to Gandhi's public standing, any utterance by him attracts large-scale publication, which gravely impairs and damages the reputation of the complainant and the identifiable class in question.

4. Stay of conviction as an exception: The Court stated that seeking a stay of conviction is not a rule but an exception to be resorted to in rare cases. It deemed that Gandhi was attempting to seek a stay of his conviction on non-existent grounds. The Court emphasized that the seriousness of the present offense should not be disregarded merely because the maximum punishment is two years.

5. Pending criminal cases against Gandhi: The Court mentioned that ten criminal cases are pending against Rahul Gandhi, including one filed by the grandson of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. It expressed the need for purity in politics and representatives of people with clear antecedents. These circumstances led the Court to conclude that refusing to stay the conviction would not cause injustice to Gandhi.

Case title: Rahul Gandhi v Purnesh Modi
Click here to read judgment