Hearing in Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's case challenging his conviction for defamation will continue in the Gujarat High Court on May 2, even as marathon submissions continued throughout the day on Saturday.
The bench will hear the matter further on May 2 and is also expected to deliver the judgment on the same day.
A lower court in Surat had sentenced Gandhi to two years of imprisonment in connection with a complaint filed by BJP leader Purnesh Modi accusing him of defaming Modi community. During an election campaign in Karnataka in 2019, Gandhi had remarked “how come all thieves have Modi surname.”
A Sessions Court in April granted him bail but refused to stay the conviction. The Congress showed its strength on the day of the hearing in the sessions court, and a large number of party workers, who were attempting to reach Surat, were detained and later released.
Gandhi, who was representing Wayanad constituency, Kerala in Lok Sabha lost his seat following the conviction.
Earlier this week, the case was listed in the court of Hemant Prachchhak after Justice Geeta Gopi refused to hear the case saying "Not before me."
Senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared on behalf of Gandhi and Nirupam Nanavati appeared on behalf of Modi. Quoting several judgments in the past, Singhvi also submitted that Gandhi was given the maximum punishment after the case was heard for only 10 minutes.
During hearing of the case, the single judge orally observed, "In fact, it is more duty towards the people at large. He is representing the people at large. He must make his statements within limits and bounds".
To this, on behalf of Gandhi, the court was told that he has not committed any grave or heinous offence like murder or any offence involving moral turpitude. During the hearing, Singhvi also questioned the locus standi of the complaint. He went on to add that allowing such a complaint would mean anybody would come and file a complaint.
Putting his side, Nanavati told the court that the plea by Gandhi is non-maintainable as it is not clear whether it is filed as a revision plea or to quash the case under section 482 of the CrPC. To this, the court said that this is more so a revision application.
Nanavati argued that the court should have asked for translated copies of the witnesses, which is in Gujarati. To this, the court gave time to Nanavati to file an affidavit.
