In March this year, a Surat court convicted Rahul Gandhi in the same case and sentenced him to two years in jail.
There is more trouble for Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. A Jharkhand court has turned down Gandhi’s plea seeking exemption from personal appearance in connection with the 2019 defamation case over his ‘Modi surname’ remark.
In March this year, a Surat court convicted Rahul Gandhi in the same case and sentenced him to two years in jail. He was convicted by a metropolitan magistrate’s court in Surat on March 23 court under IPC sections 499 and 500 (criminal defamation). The case was filed by Gujarat BJP MLA Purnesh Modi.
Following the ruling, Gandhi, who was the elected Lok Sabha MP from Wayanad in Kerala, was disqualified as a Member of Parliament (MP) under the provisions of the Representation of the People Act.
As per Indian law, if a member is convicted of any offence for two or more years, his or her seat will be declared vacant. One can only stay in the parliament if the conviction is suspended.
In Jharkhand, advocate Pradip Modi filed a complaint in Ranchi in 2019 after Gandhi made the ‘Modi’ surname remark during a public rally in Kolar, Karnataka.
During a poll campaign for 2019 polls, Gandhi said: “Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi… how come they all have Modi as the common surname? How come all the thieves have Modi as the common surname?”
Complainant Padip Modi alleged that Gandhi’s remarks were against all persons having Modi surname/title and were derogatory and defamatory. The petitioner had also filed a defamation suit against the Congress leader.
Three defamation cases are pending against Gandhi in Jharkhand, one at Chaibasa and two cases in Ranchi.
On Tuesday, the Gujarat High Court refused to give interim relief in defamation conviction to Gandhi in the defamation case. The bench of Justice Hemant Prachchhak also refused to grant the 52-year-old leader interim protection as sought by his counsel senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi.
The bench added that it will deliver its verdict in the 2019 defamation case only after the summer vacation ends in the first week of June.
The High Court, in its order, recorded that “since the court has finally heard the matter, in the interest of justice, the interim protection cannot be granted at this stage. Hence, the request for interim protection is refused.”