Complainant in Rahul Gandhi defamation case files caveat in Supreme Court

Rahul Gandhi defamation

Purnesh Modi, the complainant who initiated a defamation case against Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in Gujarat, filed a caveat in Supreme Court in anticipation of an appeal against the Gujarat High Court judgment refusing to stay his conviction in a defamation case.

According to the Supreme Court's website, the caveat was filed on July 7, the day Gujarat High Court pronounced its judgment in the 'Modi' surname remark case. It is to be noted that in a press conference held on July 7, the Congress party announced that they would be appealing against Gujarat High Court's judgment in the Supreme Court.

A caveat is a pleading filed by a party to a litigation in the lower court, informing the court that the opposing party, who has not succeeded in the lower court may file a case against them. The court is to hear both sides before passing any order in case a caveat is filed.

In March 2023, the former Congress president was found guilty of defamation for "all thieves have Modi surname" remark allegedly made during the campaign for the 2019 elections. Gandhi was convicted by the chief judicial magistrate of Surat and sentenced to two years in prison. The next day he was disqualified from the Lok Sabha.

According to the Representation of the People Act of 1951, MPs and MLAs are disqualified the moment they are convicted of an offence punished by imprisonment of two years or more. They also continue to be disqualified from the electoral process for six years after release from prison. In Gandhi's case, the conviction, if upheld, will disqualify him for eight years.

Gandhi will have to obtain a stay on his conviction to be reinstated as a member of the Lok Sabha. Days after Gandhi’s disqualification, a plea was moved in the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of the provision under which he was disqualified.

On April 20, a sessions court in Surat refused to stay Gandhi's conviction, an appeal was filed against the order in the High Court, which concluded the hearing on May 2 and refused relief on July 7.