The Supreme Court on Friday stayed Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in a defamation case over his comments on the Modi surname, underlining that the courts in Gujarat had not offered any reason, “not even a whisper”, for handing him the maximum punishment of two years in jail.

The apex court verdict clears the way for Rahul’s return to Parliament and for him to contest the general election next year.

The Supreme Court pointed out that had the punishment been even one day less, provisions of the Representation of the People Act disqualifying the Wayanad MP and effectively barring him from contesting elections for eight years would not have come into play.

“The ramifications are wide. Not only the petitioner’s right to continue in public life is affected, but also that of the electorate who have elected him. Taking into consideration these factors and that no reason has been given by the trial judge for imposing the maximum sentence, the order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication,” the bench of Justices B.R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar said.

Under the RP Act, a jail term of two years or more leads to disqualification. The maximum punishment for defamation under IPC Section 499 is two years or a fine or both.

“The trial judge has awarded the maximum sentence of two years. Except the admonition (of Rahul) by this court (in the Rafale chopper case), no other reason has been granted for this by the trial judge,” the bench headed by Justice Gavai said.

“It is to be noted only on account of this maximum sentence, provisions of the RP Act have come into play. Had the sentence been a day lesser, provisions would not have been attracted,” it said.

“Particularly when offence is non-cognisable, bailable, compoundable, trial judge is expected to give reasons for imposing the maximum sentence. Though the appellate and the high court have spent voluminous pages rejecting stay on conviction, these aspects are not considered in their orders,” Justice Gavai said, dictating the order in open court.

The defamation case was filed by Purnesh Modi, a BJP leader from Gujarat, against Rahul’s comment at a 2019 campaign rally, naming Lalit Modi and Nirav Modi and asking “why all thieves have the common surname of Modi”.

Rahul had challenged in the Supreme Court the refusal of the sessions court and Gujarat High Court to stay his conviction.

The bench said there was no doubt that Rahul’s utterances were not in good taste and a person in public life was expected to “exercise caution” while making speeches, but the two-year sentence had wider ramifications for the politician and the electorate.

It also noted that the “Modi surname” comments were made before the admonition by the Supreme Court in the Rafale case. In that case, the court had closed the contempt proceedings against Rahul for wrongly attributing to it his “chowkidar chor hai” remark against Prime Minister Narendra Modi, with a warning to be more careful in future after he apologised.

“Heard counsel on the question of interim protection.... Dr (Abhishek Manu) Singhvi and Mr (Mahesh) Jethmalani have argued at length.... The appeal filed by (Rahul) is pending before the appellate court. We, therefore, refrain from observing anything on merits,” the Supreme Court said on Friday.

Singhvi, appearing for Rahul, submitted that not a single person whom the Congress leader had named in his remarks during the election rally had lodged any complaint of defamation against him, but only a section of “BJP office-bearers” chose to file the case against him.

Singhvi also pointed out that the complainant, Purnesh, had himself admitted that his original surname was not Modi.

The senior counsel submitted that the trial judge chose to treat the remarks as a serious offence involving moral turpitude. Singhvi said that neither was there any material to substantiate the charge of moral turpitude nor was the offence heinous like kidnapping, rape or murder. Also, the offence was compoundable and bailable.

“This man (Rahul) will be silenced for eight years because of this?” Singhvi said, pointing out that dissent was part of a healthy democracy.

Singhvi said Rahul had not been convicted in any criminal case despite multiple FIRs being lodged on various issues against him by BJP workers.

Jethmalani, in his reply, said there was a plethora of evidence justifying Rahul’s conviction as the speech during an election rally in Karnataka had been videographed.

“His intention was to defame every person with the surname Modi, just because it matches that of the Prime Minister. This is ex-facie malicious,” Jethmalani argued.

“How many politicians would remember what they speak during earlier meetings?” Justice Gavai asked.

Jethmalani said that according to the Supreme Court judgment in the Lily Thomas case, disqualification of a lawmaker becomes automatic immediately upon conviction. Now if Rahul’s conviction is stayed, it amounts to his entering the legislature through the “back door”, Jethmalani contended.

However, Justice Gavai said: “Not just one individual’s right is affected, but that of an entire electorate. The trial judge has granted the maximum sentence. He has to explain why. Not a whisper by the trial judge.”

The judges, after hearing the arguments, retired to their chambers for about seven-eight minutes and returned to pass an order staying the conviction.

It is now for the Lok Sabha Speaker to allow Rahul to return to Parliament, failing which he has the option to approach the Supreme Court seeking restoration of his membership.