The Modi moniker Case: In this decision, the Supreme Court suspended Rahul Gandhi's sentence in the defamation case involving his "Modi" moniker remark. The court further declared that his comments, particularly those directed against a prominent figure, are not praiseworthy.
The trial court had sentenced the defendant to the maximum penalty of two years, according to the highest court, and had the term been reduced by one day, the defendant would not have been disqualified.
Rahul Gandhi claimed in April before a Surat session court that the verdict rendered against him in the 2019 defamation case was incorrect, unjust, and calculated to result in his expulsion from the House of Representatives. He claimed that the trial court had unfairly judged him, which significantly impacted his status as an MP.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the petitioner's remarks were inappropriate and that he or she ought to have exercised more caution while giving speeches.
The court stressed that being disqualified affects voters' rights as well as the rights of the individual.
This is Rahul Gandhi's last chance, before to the final decision, to escape disqualification and obtain authorization to take part in parliament and run for office. Rahul Gandhi had already missed two parliamentary sessions as a result of the conviction, according to his attorney's earlier claims that the High Court had delayed the verdict for 66 days.
The Supreme Court heard the request to postpone Rahul Gandhi's sentencing from Justices B.R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar. The sentence in the criminal defamation case had already been denied by the Gujarat High Court.
Senior attorney Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is defending Rahul Gandhi, claimed that although Rahul Gandhi has already been found guilty and the case is closed, there is still no proof.
According to Singhvi, this is the first time that 30 crore individuals have been treated as a single, distinguishable group. He said, "They are anonymous, faceless... a community, caste, and a group with the nickname 'Modi,' entirely distinct."
During the hearing, Justice Gavai had said that it would take an unusual case to overturn Rahul Gandhi's conviction; in response, Singhvi said that they were not debating the conviction.
Purnesh Modi, the plaintiff, altered his moniker afterwards; according to Singhvi, it was not Modi at first.
He said that Purnesh Modi, the complainant, had revealed that his initial moniker was "Modh Vanik," and that none of the individuals identified in Rahul Gandhi's address had filed a complaint.
"What's remarkable is that out of this'small' group of 13 crore individuals, the only ones who filed petitions are BJP office holders, Singhvi remarked. It's quite peculiar.
The trial court had also addressed Rahul Gandhi's criminal past, the Supreme Court later explained.
How did this connect to previous crimes? Despite having no prior criminal activity and no convictions, Singhvi responded, "I am not a hard-core criminal.
According to Singhvi, the high court views this as a crime including moral turpitude.
"Not even the slightest moral turpitude exists. No conclusion. This can be compounded, bailed, and is not cognizable. It is suitable for a compromise and is not bailable, cognizable, or compoundable. How can this be connected to moral turpitude when it is not against society, not for kidnapping, rape, or murder... a maximum of two years in jail?" he questioned.
A two-year sentence has never been imposed in another case, he continued.
In the Surat Sessions Court, where the appeal is being heard, Rahul Gandhi has contested the trial court's ruling.
The Modi moniker Case: In this decision, the Supreme Court suspended Rahul Gandhi's sentence in the defamation case involving his "Modi" moniker remark. The court further declared that his comments, particularly those directed against a prominent figure, are not praiseworthy.
The trial court had sentenced the defendant to the maximum penalty of two years, according to the highest court, and had the term been reduced by one day, the defendant would not have been disqualified.
Rahul Gandhi claimed in April before a Surat session court that the verdict rendered against him in the 2019 defamation case was incorrect, unjust, and calculated to result in his expulsion from the House of Representatives. He claimed that the trial court had unfairly judged him, which significantly impacted his status as an MP.
The Supreme Court acknowledged that the petitioner's remarks were inappropriate and that he or she ought to have exercised more caution while giving speeches.
The court stressed that being disqualified affects voters' rights as well as the rights of the individual.
This is Rahul Gandhi's last chance, before to the final decision, to escape disqualification and obtain authorization to take part in parliament and run for office. Rahul Gandhi had already missed two parliamentary sessions as a result of the conviction, according to his attorney's earlier claims that the High Court had delayed the verdict for 66 days.
The Supreme Court heard the request to postpone Rahul Gandhi's sentencing from Justices B.R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar. The sentence in the criminal defamation case had already been denied by the Gujarat High Court.
Senior attorney Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who is defending Rahul Gandhi, claimed that although Rahul Gandhi has already been found guilty and the case is closed, there is still no proof.
According to Singhvi, this is the first time that 30 crore individuals have been treated as a single, distinguishable group. He said, "They are anonymous, faceless... a community, caste, and a group with the nickname 'Modi,' entirely distinct."
During the hearing, Justice Gavai had said that it would take an unusual case to overturn Rahul Gandhi's conviction; in response, Singhvi said that they were not debating the conviction.
Purnesh Modi, the plaintiff, altered his moniker afterwards; according to Singhvi, it was not Modi at first.
He said that Purnesh Modi, the complainant, had revealed that his initial moniker was "Modh Vanik," and that none of the individuals identified in Rahul Gandhi's address had filed a complaint.
"What's remarkable is that out of this'small' group of 13 crore individuals, the only ones who filed petitions are BJP office holders, Singhvi remarked. It's quite peculiar.
The trial court had also addressed Rahul Gandhi's criminal past, the Supreme Court later explained.
How did this connect to previous crimes? Despite having no prior criminal activity and no convictions, Singhvi responded, "I am not a hard-core criminal.
According to Singhvi, the high court views this as a crime including moral turpitude.
"Not even the slightest moral turpitude exists. No conclusion. This can be compounded, bailed, and is not cognizable. It is suitable for a compromise and is not bailable, cognizable, or compoundable. How can this be connected to moral turpitude when it is not against society, not for kidnapping, rape, or murder... a maximum of two years in jail?" he questioned.
A two-year sentence has never been imposed in another case, he continued.
In the Surat Sessions Court, where the appeal is being heard, Rahul Gandhi has contested the trial court's ruling.
