Gandhi was sentenced in March by a Surat courtroom to 2 years in jail for prison defamation in a criticism filed by BJP MLA Purnesh Modi who objected to Gandhi’s remarks about thieves with the Modi surname.

Justice Hemant Prachchhak mentioned the decision can be pronounced solely after the summer season trip. The High Court will stay closed for summer season trip from May 8 to June 4 — trip benches will solely take up pressing issues.

Justice Prachchhak will likely be unavailable from May 4 since he will likely be travelling overseas.

On Tuesday, he known as for data of the defamation trial earlier than the Surat Justice of the Peace courtroom for his perusal.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi , Gandhi’s counsel, sought interim reduction by the use of a keep on the conviction within the interval main as much as the ultimate pronouncement of the decision after the choose indicated the anticipated timeline of the decision.

Justice Prachchhak, nevertheless, mentioned he can be passing closing orders within the case and refused to grant any interim keep.

An interim keep on conviction may have permitted Gandhi to strategy Parliament and search to be re-instituted to Lok Sabha for the interim interval, one of many opposing legal professionals informed The Indian Express. Gandhi stays protected against arrest owing to the keep on his sentence and bail.

The High Court, in its order, recorded that “since the court has finally heard the matter, in the interest of justice, the interim protection cannot be granted at this stage. Hence, the request for interim protection is refused.”

Meanwhile, complainant Purnesh Modi, by way of senior counsel Nirupam Nanavati, opposing Gandhi’s plea for a keep on conviction, submitted Tuesday that the offence of defamation will likely be thought-about as severe since Parliament itself, whereas enacting Section 8 (3) of the Representation of the People Act, had thought-about convictions which has sentence of two years or extra as severe and thus provisioned for disqualification.

Nanavati’s argument was in response to Gandhi’s submission final week that the offence of defamation doesn’t rely as severe and neither does it qualify as one among ethical turpitude.

Nanavati submitted that the one sufferance proven by Gandhi in his petition is the lack of his elected seat and that he will be unable to contest the elections if a keep on his conviction shouldn’t be granted. This sufferance, Nanavati mentioned, is owing to provisions below Parliamentary laws, and never owing to courtroom’s instructions, and thus can’t be put forth as a floor for searching for keep on conviction earlier than the courtroom.