The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the complainant Purnesh Modi and the Gujarat government on the petition of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in the defamation case
The Supreme Court has issued a notice to the complainant Purnesh Modi and the Gujarat government on the petition of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in the defamation case. The next hearing of the case will be on August 4. Rahul has been sentenced to 2 years in the defamation case of people with Modi surname. Due to this, his parliament membership has been cancelled. This membership can be restored only when his conviction is stayed.
Due to not getting relief from the Gujarat High Court, Rahul’s petition reached the Supreme Court today for hearing in the bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra. At the beginning of the hearing, Justice Gavai said that his father had close ties with the Congress party. His brother is still a member of the Congress. In such a situation, the lawyers of both the parties should tell whether they should have a hearing or not.
Senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for Purnesh Modi, said that he had no objection to this. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, also agreed with Jethmalani. After this, the court issued a notice and fixed the next date of hearing.
What is the matter?
Rahul Gandhi has reached the Supreme Court with an appeal to stay the two-year sentence of the Surat court. Rahul Gandhi had filed an application in the Gujarat High Court to stay his sentence. But, last week i.e. on July 7, the Gujarat High Court refused to stay Rahul’s sentence. Justifying the decision of the Surat’s Sesal Court, he had said that the punishment cannot be stayed.
Several defamation cases are already going on against him. Now Rahul has reached the Supreme Court to challenge this decision. If the Supreme Court also upholds his conviction, then Rahul will not be able to contest the 2024 elections as well. With this, he will remain disqualified for the next 6 years.
Rahul had sought a stay on his conviction. But it was first rejected by the Sessions Court and later by the High Court. Both the courts agreed that Rahul’s sentence has been stayed under the rules applicable to ordinary people, but he is seeking special concession. They also want a ban on blame, which is not necessary to be imposed.