Begin typing your search above and press return to search.
proflie-avatar
Login
exit_to_app
Break up or get dissolved
access_time 4 Nov 2024 4:01 AM GMT
Through oneness to autocracy
access_time 2 Nov 2024 4:58 AM GMT
In football too racism rules the roost
access_time 1 Nov 2024 4:26 AM GMT
The concerns raised by the census
access_time 31 Oct 2024 7:49 AM GMT
exit_to_app
Homechevron_rightIndiachevron_rightBJP MLA files caveat...

BJP MLA files caveat in SC following verdict in Rahul Gandhi defamation case

text_fields
bookmark_border
BJP MLA files caveat in SC following verdict in Rahul Gandhi defamation case
cancel

New Delhi: Rahul Gandhi's defamation case's complainant, BJP MLA Purnesh Modi, has filed a caveat with the Supreme Court asking for a chance to argue his case if the Congressman appeals the recent Gujarat High Court decision that upheld his conviction in the 2019 case.

Purnesh Modi, through his lawyer P. S. Sudheer, swiftly filed the caveat in the Supreme Court the same day Gandhi's request for a stay of his conviction in the defamation case was denied by a single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court on July 7.

A caveat serves as a notice submitted to an appellate court by a litigant who wishes to be heard in case any orders are issued regarding an opponent's appeal that challenges the decision or judgment made by the lower court.

On July 7, the Gujarat High Court rejected the plea of the Congress leader to suspend his conviction and two-year imprisonment in a criminal defamation case, resulting in the loss of his parliamentary membership.

Justice Hemant Prachchhak had upheld the ruling of a Gujarat sessions court, which had declined to stay a magisterial court's verdict on March 23 that found the Congress leader guilty and imposed the highest penalty allowed for criminal defamation under the India Penal Code.

While announcing the decision, the judge noted that Gandhi has a minimum of eight other criminal cases pending against him.


With inputs from IANS

Show Full Article
TAGS:Rahul Gandhisupreme courtDefamation Case
Next Story