Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Supreme Court Stays Conviction of Rahul Gandhi - Lack of Reasons for Maximum Sentence"

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has granted interim relief to Rahul Gandhi, staying his conviction in a criminal case. The judgment was delivered by a bench comprising of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.R. Gavai, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar on 4th August 2023.

The case in question pertains to Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 8644/2023 filed by Rahul Gandhi against the impugned judgment and order dated 7th July 2023 of the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad. The High Court had dismissed the revision petition filed by Rahul Gandhi, challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge, which rejected his prayer for stay of conviction.

The Court noted that the Trial Judge had awarded the maximum sentence of two years' imprisonment to Rahul Gandhi without providing any reasons for such a decision. This raised concerns as it triggered the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, which can result in disqualification from public office.

"Though the learned Appellate Court and the learned High Court have spent voluminous pages while rejecting the application for stay of conviction, these aspects have not even been touched in their orders," the Court observed in its judgment.

Furthermore, the Court emphasized the importance of restraint in public speeches for individuals in public life, referring to previous proceedings against Rahul Gandhi in contempt cases. However, it noted that the absence of reasons for imposing the maximum sentence of two years required consideration

"We are of the considered view that the ramification of subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Act are wide-ranging. They not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who have elected him, to represent their constituency," the Court stated.

Taking into account the potential consequences and the lack of reasons for the maximum sentence, the Supreme Court stayed the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal. It, however, clarified that the pendency of the appeal would not hinder the Appellate Court from proceeding further with the appeal on its merits.

"The parties would be at liberty to approach the learned Appellate Court for expeditious disposal of the appeal, which request would be considered by it, on its own merits," the Court added.

The stay on Rahul Gandhi's conviction has sparked discussions and debates among legal experts and political commentators, given the significance of the case in terms of its impact on public officeholders. The Appellate Court will now proceed with the appeal to decide on the merits of the case in due course.

Date of Decision: 04-08-2023

RAHUL GANDHI  vs PURNESH ISHWARBHAI MODI & ANR.  

Latest Legal News