What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
What TV doesn't, print can't; we deliver.
He mentioned that there are 13 crore Modis and the surname can be found in every community and there is no organized group of people with the surname Modi.
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, who was granted bail by Surat court in a defamation case over his “why all thieves have Modi surname” remark, stated that Modi Samaj cannot be identified as a definitive or determinate group, and there is no existing record of a Modi community.
He mentioned that there are 13 crore Modis and the surname can be found in every community and there is no organized group of people with the surname Modi. Moreover, he stated that the defamatory statement doesn’t target a specific group of Modis that is distinct from the others.
“Not an identifiable, definitive, or determinate group” and that there is no record of a Modi samaj or community. He further added, “There are Modis in every community, and there is no organization of persons with the surname Modi. The impugned defamatory statement does not refer to a particular group of Modis distinguished from the rest of the Modis,” read Rahul’s petition.
The petition also contended that the leader’s conviction was “erroneous and patently perverse.” Additionally, it was mentioned that the sentencing was intentionally done in a manner that would lead to disqualification as a Member of Parliament.
According to the Congress leader, the trial court treated him harshly and was excessively influenced by his status as an MP. Furthermore, he asserted that there is no record of a definitive Modi samaj or community.
In his appeal filed before the Surat sessions court, the Congress leader said, “The judgement of conviction and order of sentence passed by the CJM (Chief Judicial Magistrate) is erroneous, patently perverse, in flagrant violation of principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal trial, illegal and unwarranted on the facts and circumstances of the case and on the evidence to substantiate the charge levelled against the appellant or accused.”
In his petition, he also claimed that the verdict was based on “assumptions, presumptions, conjectures, surmises, and suppositions,” which are not permissible under criminal law.
The four-time MP in his plea said that by the very nature of his task, a politician in Opposition cannot always weigh his words in golden scales, he said, adding, “Hence, it is incumbent upon courts to focus on the essence and spirit of the speech (related to Modi surname) made rather than on the tone and tenor.”
The Congress leader said that “a strong and uncompromising opposition” is the essential requirement of a “true and healthy democracy.”
“While performing his duties as a critic of the government, a Member of the Legislature, is very likely to cause annoyance and/or embarrassment to those in power,” he said.
The plea said that the order of conviction and sentence was bad in law and against the weight of evidence, and the trial judge was “overwhelmingly influenced” by his status as an MP.
A lower court on March 23 order had found him guilty of criminal defamation for his ‘all thieves have Modi surname’ remark.
The court accepted his petition and posted it for hearing on April 13.
On March 24, barely twenty-four hours after a lower court in the city found Gandhi guilty of defaming the entire Modi community in a case filed by BJP MLA Purnesh Modi, the ex-Congress president was disqualified from Lok Sabha under a rule which bars convicted MPs from holding Lok Sabha membership.
Days later, he was also directed to vacate his official residence in New Delhi that was allotted to him as an MP, with the deadline to do so being April 22.
Gandhi had made the ‘Modi surname’ remark in April 2019 in Karnataka’s Kolar, while campaigning for the Lok Sabha elections. His target was PM Narendra Modi, whom he equated with fugitives like Lalit Modi and Nirav Modi. The former Congress MP was given the maximum 2-year jail term for his offence, but the sentence was suspended for thirty days for him to file an appeal against the order. If the conviction, however, is not overturned, he will stand disqualified from contesting elections for the next 8 years.
