Rahul Gandhi seeks sentence stay, return to parliament

Rahul Gandhi, a prominent figure in the Congress party, has recently submitted an affidavit in the Supreme Court, seeking a stay on his two-year sentence in the “Modi surname” case. He appealed for the restoration of his Parliament membership to attend parliamentary proceedings, which was annulled following his sentencing by a lower court in Gujarat. The Gujarat High Court upheld this decision when Gandhi challenged it.
In the affidavit, Gandhi criticises Gujarat BJP MLA Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi for using demeaning terms like ‘arrogant’ towards him due to his refusal to apologise. He asserts that leveraging the criminal process and the implications under the Representation of the People Act to coerce an apology is a misuse of the judicial process, which should not be tolerated.
Furthermore, Gandhi presents his case as ‘extraordinary,’ considering the offence is minor, but the damage to him as an elected parliamentarian is irreparable. He had previously petitioned the Supreme Court for a stay on his sentence after the Gujarat High Court’s ruling. However, MLA Purnesh Modi had already placed a caveat in the Supreme Court. During the hearing of Gandhi’s petition on July 21, a notice was issued to Purnesh Modi, and the next hearing was scheduled for August 4.
The controversy began when, at a rally in Kolar, Karnataka in April 2019, Gandhi satirised Prime Minister Narendra Modi, asking, “How come Modi is the common surname of all thieves?”
In his affidavit, Gandhi asserted his innocence and maintained he “does not deserve to be convicted”. He argued if he had needed to apologise and reduce the crime’s severity, he would have done it long ago.
The Supreme Court sought a response from the Gujarat government and the complainant on Gandhi’s appeal against the Gujarat High Court order, which declined to stay his conviction in a criminal defamation case.
Gandhi, while approaching the apex court, also requested a stay on the Gujarat High Court’s judgement that confirmed his conviction, citing it had “no parallel or precedent in the jurisprudence of the law of defamation”. He contended that it was both peculiar and shocking that all earlier cases, including his present speech, were filed by members and functionaries of the ruling party.
He further submitted that the surname ‘Modi’ is used by different communities and sub-communities across the country, demonstrating no commonality or uniformity.
The ‘Modi’ surname is associated with various castes, he added.