'Will continue our legal battle': Purnesh Modi after SC grants stay on Rahul Gandhi's defamation case

Former Gujarat Minister Purnesh Modi, who instigated the defamation case against Rahul Gandhi revolving around the Modi surname, expressed his deference for the apex court's decision to grant a stay on Rahul Gandhi's conviction. Nevertheless, he has made it clear that he intends to continue exploring further legal avenues.

Speaking to reporters, Purnesh Modi said, "We respect the court's order. But we will continue our legal battle," in response to the Supreme Court's recent verdict to halt the conviction.

Modi surname remark case: Supreme Court stays Rahul Gandhi's conviction; revives MP status

On Friday, the Supreme Court's judgment temporarily suspended the conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a 2019 defamation case that revolved around his comments regarding the Modi surname. This decision has subsequently led to the restoration of Rahul Gandhi's status as a Member of Parliament.

A panel comprising Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar emphasized that while the comments made were unquestionably distasteful, individuals occupying public office are held to a higher standard and are expected to exercise caution and prudence in their public statements.

In a significant development, the Supreme Court on August 4th issued a stay on the conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case stemming from his remarks about the "Modi surname." This legal dispute had originated from a case filed by BJP legislator Purnesh Modi.

Delhi excise policy case: No bail for Manish Sisodia today as SC defers hearing plea to September 4

Delving into the intricacies of the matter, the Supreme Court highlighted that if Rahul Gandhi had been handed a sentence of 1 year and 11 months, he would have avoided disqualification as a Member of Parliament.

Justice BR Gavai emphasized that the case's implications transcend individual rights, resonating with the rights of the larger electorate. The court also raised concerns about the trial judge's decision to impose the maximum sentence without furnishing a satisfactory explanation.