The hearing in Surat’s Sessions Court on the plea of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to stay the two-year sentence awarded to him in a criminal defamation case has been completed. The court has reserved the verdict following the hearing. The verdict will be pronounced on 20 April. During the hearing, Senior Advocate RS Cheema placed Rahul Gandhi’s point in front of the court.
The court had earlier given an exemption to Rahul Gandhi not to be present during the hearing. Rahul Gandhi’s lawyer argued in the court that the defamation case regarding Rahul’s comment on Modi’s surname was not justified. He also argued that there was no need for maximum punishment in the case. In this case, the petitioner Purnesh Modi, in his reply filed in the court, opposing the petition to stay Gandhi’s conviction, had said that the Congress leader is used to making defamatory statements repeatedly.
Gujarat | Surat Court to pass order on an interim application filed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi seeking stay on his conviction in 2019 defamation case on ‘Modi surname’ remark on April 20 https://t.co/MAKdqlwVku
— ANI (@ANI) April 13, 2023
Senior Advocate RS Cheema said that Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provides for suspension of sentence pending appeal. He said power is an exception but the court should consider the consequences of punishment. He said that the court should consider whether the convict would suffer irreparable harm and it is an injustice to get such punishment.
On March 23, Rahul Gandhi was sentenced to two years in a defamation case. Shortly after the sentence was announced, he was granted bail for 30 days. His membership in the Lok Sabha was canceled as well the very next day after the sentence was pronounced.
On March 27, the Lok Sabha Housing Committee sent a notice to Rahul to vacate his government bungalow. The committee asked him to vacate the government residence at 12 Tughlaq Road by 22 April. Rahul has decided to vacate the bungalow and live in his mother Sonia Gandhi’s residence.
Rahul Gandhi had filed a main petition in the Surat court and made 2 applications. The decision of the lower court was challenged in the main petition. While the first of the two applications was to stay the conviction, the second was to stay the sentence.
