Rahul Gandhi, the leader of the Congress, appealed the Gujarat high court's decision to uphold his conviction and two-year prison sentence in a criminal defamation case, and the Supreme Court decided to hear his case on July 21.



Following senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi's mention of the case and request for an expedited hearing, Chief Justice of India Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud set the date of hearing for Gandhi's appeal.

The appeal was submitted on July 15, precisely one week after the high court rejected Gandhi's bid to regain his Lok Sabha seat, finding that the Congressman "breached modesty" and that his offense entailed "moral turpitude."

Gandhi argues in his appeal that the conviction order will stifle free speech, free expression, free thought, and free statement and urges the top court to immediately stay his conviction in order to restore his MP status.

According to him, doing so would "contribute to the systematic, repetitive emasculation of democratic institutions and the ensuing strangulation of democracy, which would be gravely detrimental to the political climate and future of India."

Gandhi's appeal also claimed that criticizing economic offenders and Narendra Modi in a political speech during democratic political action had been deemed a morally repugnant act deserving of the severe punishment.

"Such a conclusion is severely harmful to democratic free expression during a political campaign. We sincerely argue that this will create a dreadful precedent that will eliminate any political discourse or debate that is even slightly critical in any way," it stated.

In order to prevent any decisions regarding Gandhi's appeal from being made without hearing from him, the case's complainant, BJP politician Purnesh Modi, has already submitted his caveat to the Supreme Court.

In response to a criminal complaint from Purnesh Modi, a Gujarat magisterial court found Gandhi guilty on March 23 for his comments on the surname "Modi". The Congress leader was denied the right to serve as an MP under the Representation of People Act after receiving a two-year prison sentence. Following a notification from the Lok Sabha Secretariat on March 24, Gandhi was declared ineligible to serve as the MP for Kerala's Wayanad.

Gandhi requested a stay of execution from the sessions court, but it was denied on April 20. This prompted Gandhi to request a stay from the high court. Gandhi's status as an MP and a former leader of the nation's second-largest political party was mentioned in the April 20 order, which stated that he ought to have used more caution when making his remarks.

Gandhi's criminal revision motion, which sought a stay of his conviction, was denied by the high court on July 7, and the court upheld this decision.

The current conviction affects a significant portion of society, and this court should treat it with the gravity and importance it deserves. Right now, having purity in politics is essential. "Men of clear antecedent should be men representing the people," wrote Justice Hemant P. Prachchhak in his ruling.

The high court decision meant that Gandhi's exclusion from the Lok Sabha would remain in effect. Gandhi, however, cannot be detained because his current jail sentence is suspended. He can only run in the Lok Sabha elections the next year if the Supreme Court suspends his conviction or a sessions court rules favorably on his appeal.

Gandhi is legally ineligible to serve in either House of Parliament for an eight-year period as a result of the conviction and two-year prison sentence. But if he can get the conviction overturned or suspended by a higher court, this can be undone.

To enable the former head of the Congress to run in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, Gandhi's legal team must now obtain at least a stay of the conviction in the upcoming 10 months.

Gandhi argued in his appeal to the Supreme Court that the entire tenor of the rulings by the lower courts and the High Court mischaracterized his one-line comment as being extremely serious.

"As a result, the petitioner has been permanently barred from holding any political office for the past eight years. Additionally, the petitioner has consistently led opposition political activity and has served as the past president of the nation's oldest political movement, all of which are located in the largest democracy in the world, according to the appeal.

Gandhi asserted that any political speech that is colorfully critical of the government or any other political party or that uses a turn of phrase during a ferocious political speech would be considered an act of moral turpitude if political satire were to be considered a base motive. The cornerstone of democracy would be entirely undermined by this.

The argument stated that it was entirely inconsistent to compare a political statement that criticized the government or a particular group of people, even if it was defamatory, to the aforementioned.