If I Had To Apologise…”: Rahul Gandhi On “Modi Surname”
Congress leader Rahul Gandhi while maintaining that he was not guilty in the ‘Modi surname’ remark case, on Wednesday requested the Supreme Court to stay his two-year conviction, enabling him to participate in the ongoing sittings of the Lok Sabha and sessions thereafter.
At a rally in Karnataka’s Kolar in April 2019, Rahul Gandhi, in a dig at Prime Minister Narendra Modi, said, “How come all the thieves have Modi as the common surname?”.
Mr Gandhi, filing an affidavit before the top court said that he has always maintained that he is not guilty of the offence and that the “conviction is unsustainable” and if he had to apologise and compound the offence, “he would have done it much earlier”.
The complainant, Gujarat BJP MLA Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi, in his reply before the Supreme Court, used slanderous terms such as ‘arrogant’ to describe him only because he has refused to apologise, stated Mr Gandhi’s affidavit.
Using the criminal process and the consequences under the Representation of Peoples Act to “arm twist” Mr Gandhi into apologising for no fault, is a gross abuse of the judicial process and ought not to be countenanced by this court
The affidavit further stated that Mr Gandhi has an ‘exceptional’ case considering the offence being a trivial offence, and the irreparable harm that accrues to him as an elected MP.
“On the other hand, there is no prejudice caused at all to the complainant. It is therefore prayed for that the conviction of Gandhi be stayed, enabling him to participate in the ongoing sittings of the Lok Sabha and the sessions thereafter,” Mr Gandhi said.
The complainant in the Rahul Gandhi’s criminal defamation case in which he was convicted and sentenced to two years in jail by the Surat court over the ‘Modi surname’ remark, on Monday told the Supreme Court that the attitude of the Congress leader reveals arrogant entitlement and he doesn’t deserve any relief in form of stay on his conviction.
Rahul Gandhi has shown arrogance rather than being apologetic over his remarks and his attitude shows insensitivity to an offended community and contempt for the law, according to the complainant
