RS Cheema argues for Rahul Gandhi in Modi-surname case

On Thursday, a sessions court in Surat began hearing Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plea to stay his conviction in the Modi-surname defamation case.

Senior advocate RS Cheema, who is representing Rahul Gandhi, argued that his client’s disqualification as a result of the conviction would lead to irreparable loss and irreversible injury, given that he was elected from Wayanad by a record margin of votes.

Rahul Gandhi’s speech, according to Cheema, was not defamatory unless it was taken out of context and scrutinised closely, according to Bar and Bench.

Cheema claimed that Rahul Gandhi was subjected to the legal action because he dared to express vehement criticism of the Prime Minister.He also raised the issue of the complainant’s geographical claiming that the speech was delivered in Kolar and the complainant received a message on his Whatsapp, the court has jurisdiction. Cheema further questioned the validity of filing a defamation case for words that are often used for various groups, such as Gujaratis or Punjabis.

The lawyer expressed shock at the trial court’s conduct in the case, stating that the judge was misled and harsh. Cheema cited the judge’s comment that Rahul Gandhi was warned by the Supreme Court, saying that while the ‘Modi surname’ comment was made in April 2019, his client had apologised to the Supreme Court for his ‘Chowkidar chor’ remarks in November 2019. Thus, Cheema argued that the judge could not rely on the complainant’s claim that he was admonished by the top court.

The case highlights the issue of defamation laws and their potential misuse for political gain. It also raises questions about the fair and impartial conduct of trials, particularly when it comes to high-profile cases involving politicians. The need for a robust and impartial judiciary that upholds the rule of law and protects the rights of individuals is paramount.

Furthermore, the case raises concerns about the freedom of speech and expression in India. The right to express dissent and criticism is a fundamental right enshrined in the Constitution, and any attempt to stifle or curtail this right is a violation of the democratic principles that India stands for. It is essential that laws such as defamation laws are not misused to silence voices of dissent or criticism.

Finally, the case highlights the need for greater accountability and transparency in the political system. Politicians should be held accountable for their actions and statements, and the public should have access to accurate and unbiased information to make informed decisions. The media also has a crucial role to play in ensuring that information is disseminated in a fair and impartial manner, and that it serves the public interest rather than any particular political agenda.