Today the Surat Sessions Court on dismissed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's plea seeking to stay his conviction and two years sentence given by a Magistrate court in the criminal defamation case filed against him. Additional Sessions Judge Robin Mogera refused to stay the conviction by the Magistrate which means Gandhi would continue to stand disqualified from Lok Sabha.

Rahul Gandhi was convicted by a Magistrate court in Surat on 23rd March 2023 for his remark "all thieves have Modi surname" which he had made at an election rally in Kolar in 2019.

The conviction was based on a complaint filed by BJP leader Purnesh Modi, who claimed that the Congress leader through his remark defamed the entire Modi community.

While dismissing the application filed by Gandhi, held that Gandhi's disqualification would not cause any irresistible or irrevocable loss to him. 

It was argued on behalf of Gandhi that only PM Narendra Modi could have filed a complaint of criminal defamation as there is no identifiable group called as 'Modi' and thus the plaint filed by Purnesh Modi is untenable. It was noted in theorder that Gandhi had made certain derogatory remarks against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in general public and further compared the persons having 'Modi' surname with thieves.

"Moreover, the complainant is ex-minister and involved in public life and such defamatory remarks would have certainly harmed his reputation and caused him pain and agony in society. For such reasons, I do not agree with the objections raised with regard to maintainability of the complaint," the judge said in the order. 

The order says "It appears from record that all opportunities were accorded to Gandhi for cross-examining the witnesses and hence I do not agree with the contentions about he being deprived of fair trial".

It was argued that maximum sentence was imposed on Gandhi and the same was disproportionate, the Court said that the Magistrate imposed a sentence which was permissible in law.

"So far as imposing of maximum punishment is concerned, it would be worthwhile to observe that the appellant was not an ordinary person and was sitting MP, connected with public life. Any word spoken by appellant would have large impact in mind of common public...Moreover, high standard of morality is expected from a person like appellant and the trial court had inflicted sentence, which was permissible in law".

The judge further said that Gandhi's words would have caused extreme mental agony to Purnesh Modi who himself is socially active and involved in public life.

The order says "I hold that removal or disqualification as Member of Parliament cannot be termed as irreversible or irreparable loss or damage to Gandhi". 

The judge also said that powers under section 389 CrPC are discretionary.