No doubt what Rahul Gandhi said, should not have said: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court said, ‘There is no doubt that the alleged statement of the petitioner (Rahul Gandhi) is not good. A person in public life is expected to exercise some degree of restraint while making a public speech… The petitioner should have been more careful while making a public speech.’ However, he also clarified that he is not commenting on the merits of the case.
Ban on decisions from Gujarat
In fact, the Supreme Court not only stayed Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in the Modi surname case, it also said that the lower court in Gujarat erred in awarding the maximum sentence for defamation without assigning any reason. Then the Gujarat High Court also ignored this fact, which dismissed Rahul Gandhi’s appeal against the lower court’s decision. It said that the trial court did not even consider this angle. The Supreme Court said that the trial court’s order not only affected the rights of one person (Rahul Gandhi), but also the rights of the entire community of Wayanad as they lost their representation in Parliament.
Big crisis averted by Rahul Gandhi
For a two-year sentence, Rahul would have been barred from the electoral field for eight years. In fact, Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act states that ‘such convicted person shall be disqualified from contesting elections from the date of such sentence and shall, after completion of two years’ sentence, undergo a further six years’ imprisonment. He will remain ineligible for the period. The bench said, “We are of the view that sub-section (3) of section 8 of the Act has a far reaching effect. It affects not only the right of the petitioner to continue in public life but also the rights of voters, who have elected him to represent their constituency… In view of the above aspects and in particular that the trial court judge did not show any reason for awarding the maximum sentence in the case, the present appeal is to be stayed pending hearing. There is a need to stay the order of conviction. The Supreme Court argued in its decision that by not doing so, the provision of disqualification under section 8 (3) is applicable due to the maximum punishment given in the defamation case, so it is not only Rahul Gandhi, but the people of his constituency Will also have a wider impact.
Relief to Rahul, rebuke to the courts
While giving relief to Rahul Gandhi, the Supreme Court also pulled up the trial judge of Gujarat. The Supreme Court observed, “Particularly, when an offense is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable, the trial judge is required to show at least some reason It is submitted that in view of the prevailing facts and circumstances, it is necessary to impose a maximum sentence of two years on him. Although the Appellate Court and the High Court, while rejecting Rahul Gandhi’s petition to stay the conviction, gave many pages of color in their respective orders, but these aspects were not even touched in their orders. ‘ Taking a dig at the orders passed by the trial court and upheld by the Gujarat High Court in the matter, the bench said that some of the judgments coming from the High Court are very interesting. The Supreme Court said, ‘The less said about it, the better.’
Singhvi said in the Supreme Court – Rahul Gandhi is not a criminal
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Rahul Gandhi, said staying the conviction is absolutely appropriate as Rahul cannot be silenced (by barring him from contesting elections) for eight years. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument of Singhvi. Singhvi further said that Rahul’s statement was not intended to defame any community and there was no moral turpitude in it. He said that this was the first case in history where maximum punishment has been awarded for bailable, non-cognizable and compoundable offences. Singhvi opposed the trial court’s finding that Rahul had a criminal background. Singhvi insisted in the Supreme Court that Rahul Gandhi is not a criminal and has never been convicted in any case.
This argument against Rahul’s petition
On the other hand, senior advocate Mahesh Jethmalani, appearing for the complainant against Rahul Gandhi, opposed the petition. He said that Rahul was reprimanded by the apex court for making contemptuous remarks (Rafale case) and his remarks against the Modi community were also made in the same year (2029).