Supreme Court stays Conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in Defamation Case
After the Supreme Court on Friday stayed the conviction of Rahul Gandhi in a 2019 defamation case, Congress leader in Lok Sabha, Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury, met Speaker Om Birla and urged him to restore membership of Rahul.
"...we would like Rahul Gandhi to speak on the no-confidence motion next week,” Chowdhury said.
The Speaker, he said, told him that “Kam se kam court se toh paper aane dijiye. Uske baad karavai karenge. We will sit on Monday and decide,” Chowdhury said.
“The order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication,” Justice B.R. Gavai said in his ruling.
"Supreme Court is regaining public Confidence under the leadership of CJI DY Chandrachud," came a remark from a practicing politician.
"It's a happy day. I will write and speak to Lok Sabha Speaker today itself," Congress MP Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said.
"We respect the court's order. But we will continue our legal battle on behalf of the community," says BJP leader Purnesh Modi remarked on the Supreme Court decision.
From legal point of view, with the stay of his conviction, Rahul Gandhi's disqualification as MP also now remains in abeyance.
Is foreign media also delighted ?
"Rahul Gandhi, 53, was sentenced to two years’ imprisonment in March in a case that critics have said showed threats to the rule of law in the world’s largest democracy", says a foreign news agency report.
India’s top court's order could pave the way for Rahul Gandhi to return to parliament after his disqualification. Incidentally, the debate on No Confidence Motion against the Modi government will be taken up between Aug 8th and 10th.
A Surat court had, on March 23, convicted Rahul Gandhi and sentenced him for two years. A day later, he was disqualified as a Lok Sabha MP; he represented the Wayanad seat in Kerala.
The case relates to Rahul Gandhi's "How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname?" remark made during an election rally in Kolar in Karnataka in April, 2019.
At the same time, the bench observed that the utterances of Rahul Gandhi were not in "good taste" and said that a person in public life ought to have been more careful while making public speeches.
The court ruled, "....Particularly when the offence was non-compoundable, bailable and cognizable, the least which was expected from the learned trial judge was to give reasons for imposing the maximum punishment. Though the learned appellate court and the High Court have spent voluminous pages in rejecting the applications, these aspects are not seen considered".
Justice Gavai : Leave granted. Heard counsel on question of interim protection...Though Dr Singhvi & Jethmalani have argued .....appeal filed by [Gandhi] is pending before appellate court. We therefore refrain from observing anything on merits..."
Rahul's counsel Abhishek #Singhvi: Election for Kerala seat has not been notified yet..... (something more)
Justice Gavai : Don't make it political. You & Mr (Mahesh)#Jethmalani save it for #RajyaSabha. Singhvi withdraws controversial remark.
(Both Jethmalani and Singhvi are members of Upper House of Parliament)
It is well held that an apology does not eradicate contempt, or conviction for it, says counsel Mahesh Jethmalani
In response to observation made by Rahul's lawyer Singhvi on the parliamentary constituency being 'unrepresented' as Rahul has been disqualified, Mr Jethmalani says:
".....about constituency being unrepresented...Right of electorate to elect a person who...Not a person who makes rash sentence, has broken the law..."
In reference to another case, it can be stated that once the conviction of an MP or MLA has been stayed by the appellate court under section 389 of the Cr. P C., the disqualification under sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 of Section 8 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 will not operate.
Importantly the court also said :
"The sentence for an offence punishable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code is maximum of two years of sentence or fine or both. The learned trial judge, in the order passed by him, has awarded the maximum sentence of two years.
Except the admonition to the petitioner by this Court in a contempt proceeding, no other reason has been granted by the learned trial judge while imposing the maximum sentence of two years."
It is to be noted that it is only on account of the maximum sentence of two years imposed by the learned trial judge that the provisions of Section 8(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act came into play. Had the sentence been a day lesser, then the provisions would not have attracted."
"There is no doubt that utterances are not in good taste, person in public life is expected to exercise caution while making public speeches, says Supreme Court. As observed by this court while accepting his affidavit in the contempt petition, he (Rahul Gandhi) ought to have been more careful."
"It's a happy day. I will write and speak to Lok Sabha Speaker today itself," Congress MP Adhir Ranjan Chowdhury said.
Rahul Gandhi had gone to the Supreme Court after a sessions court in Surat, and then the Gujarat High Court refused to put his conviction on hold.
During the hearing earlier today, the Supreme Court had remarked that the Gujarat High Court order made for a "very interesting read" and that it had a "lot of preaching."
Dismissing Rahul Gandhi's petition, the Gujarat High Court had, on July 7, observed that "purity in politics" is the need of the hour.
The High Court further said that there was no reasonable ground to stay the conviction. It held trial court's order "just, proper and legal".
"There is no reasonable ground to stay the conviction. The trial court's order is just, proper and legal and there is no need to interfere with the said order. The disqualification is not limited to only MPs and MLAs," the High Court had observed.
No comments:
Post a Comment