'Come what may, my duty remains the same': Rahul Gandhi as SC stays his conviction in defamation case

Reacting to the Supreme Court’s verdict on the ‘Modi Surname’ case, Rahul Gandhi said, “Come what may, my duty remains the same.” Earlier today, the apex court stayed the Congress leader’s conviction in the Modi surname defamation case.

Come what may, my duty remains the same.

Protect the idea of India.

— Rahul Gandhi (@RahulGandhi) August 4, 2023

It has also restored Gandhi’s status as a Member of Parliament and now the Congress leader can contest elections. The court said there was no reason given by the trial judge in giving the maximum punishment of two years. It further said Gandhi’s disqualification affects not only him but also the electorates of his constituency. A three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar hearing Gandhi’s plea, on Friday observed that the remarks by him were not in “good taste” and said a person in public life ought to have been more careful while making public speeches. The bench said that it is staying the conviction after considering the wide ramifications of Section 8(3) affecting not only the right of the petitioner but also the rights of the electorate which elected him in the constituency and also the fact that no reason has been assigned by the trial court to award the maximum sentence. Rejoicing the apex court’s judgment, Priyanka Gandhi Vadra quoted Gautam Buddha, saying, “Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge said, “Justice has been delivered. Democracy has won. The Constitution has been upheld.” Earlier this week, Gandhi refused to apologise for his remark but urged the Supreme Court to stay his conviction in the criminal defamation case, asserting he is not guilty. In an affidavit filed before the apex court, Gandhi said, Modi in his reply used “slanderous” terms such as “arrogant” for him only because he has refused to apologise. “Using the criminal process and the consequences under Representation of People Act to arm twist the Petitioner into apologising for no fault is gross abuse of the judicial process and ought not to be countenanced by this Court.”