Senior Congress leader and former party president Rahul Gandhi has filed a petition in the Supreme Court, challenging the Gujarat High Court’s refusal to stay his conviction in the criminal defamation case over his ‘Modi surname’ remark, which led to his disqualification as a Lok Sabha MP earlier this year.
However, the buzz in the political corridor is on what will be the political fate of Rahul Gandhi after SC order on his conviction. Will the Supreme Court order stay on his conviction, keeping in view its own order in similar cases in the past?
Some legal experts are of the opinion that the justification given by the Gujarat High Court may not stand scrutiny by the Supreme Court if the SC decides on the merit and gravity of the case. Also, there are some strong observations that if SC does not stay conviction and grant bail to Rahul Gandhi then he will get sympathy of people and eventually turn out to be a ‘national hero’.
In his tweet, senior Supreme Court lawyer Sanjay Hegde said, “When the history of the #Amargency (Undeclared Emergency) is written, it will be recorded that Judges from Gujarat, disqualified a MP from Kerala for a political speech in Karnataka.”
On the merit of the case, Hegde told Radiance, “Looking at the Rahul Gandhi defamation saga, it does appear that the criminal law of defamation was weaponised for the greater impact of ridding Parliament of a prominent opposition leader.”
He added, “The Gujarat High Court knows the position of law set out by the Supreme Court in the Lily Thomas case, that “…the disqualification under sub-section (1), (2), or (3) of Section 8 of the Act will not operate from the date of order of stay of conviction passed by the Appellate Court under Section 389 of the Code or the High Court under Section 482 of the Code.
“Not staying the conviction is a deliberate act and the justifications given by Justice (Hemant M) Prachak of the High Court, may not stand scrutiny by the Supreme Court.”
Another legal expert, Fuzail Ahmad Ayyubi,Advocate-on-Record, Supreme Court of India, said, “Subsequent to the judgment in Lily Thomas, an anomalous position exists. While the court has held that disqualification would operate from date of conviction, if the Speaker acts immediately, as happened in both Mohammed Faizal’s case and Rahul Gandhi’s case, upon stay of conviction the MP remains disqualified during that limited period when he was convicted and the date when a stay is granted on conviction. This anomaly continues and perhaps can be cured if the Court’s attention is brought to this aspect and perhaps a reading down of the judgment in Lily Thomas.”
Ayyubi added, “Moreover, right to sue for defamation is a right in personam and is only a jus in rem. That means that only the person aggrieved has a right to move court but the decision is good against every person. When the Supreme Court ultimately weighs in the allegation as against the resultant disqualification, it would keep these factors in mind. The complaint instituted in the case is not even by the person to whom he referred during the speech. Though these grounds would be taken in appeal against the conviction, so far as the conviction has resulted in disqualification, the Court would need to go into these grounds for purpose of staying conviction as well.”
According to Senior Journalist and Ex-General Secretary of Broadcast Editors’ Association, NK Singh, “The Gujarat High Court judgment related to stay on conviction will be recorded in the history as a very strange order where question will be asked that whether this case was decided on judicial prudence and wisdom.”
Senior journalist, NK Singh while, presenting his point of view in the case on satyahindi.com, argued: “High Court has denied stay on Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in defamation case. The logical premise for denial was also very strange that even Veer Savarkar’s grandson has filed a case against Rahul, besides 10 other cases and it was surprisingly the ground for denial. The merit on which the case should have been decided on: Is Rahul guilty of moral turpitude or has he committed such heinous crime which has shaken the collective conscience of the society? Keeping in mind the order of SC in conviction of Navjot Singh Sidhu and some others in the past, the SC should not only stay conviction of Rahul Gandhi but also grant him permanent bail.”
We have another example where the Lok Sabha Secretariat reinstated Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal’s membership in the midst of controversy over Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s expulsion from the House of Representatives after a Gujarat Court sentenced him to two years in prison. On January 13, Faizal was expelled from the Lok Sabha after he and three others were found guilty of attempting to murder Mohammed Salih, the son-in-law of the late Union Minister P M Sayeed, during the 2009 Lok Sabha elections and were each given a 10-year rigorous prison sentence and a fine of `1 lakh.
“Mr Gandhi’s targeting by the judicial machinery in Gujarat is far more serious than political vendetta against a well-known political opponent of Mr Narendra Modi, the son of Gujarat and the ruler of India.
We had seen it often in cases of poor Muslim victims of the 2002 violence and the hounding of their supporters such as Teesta Setalvad that the lower courts and the High Court of Gujarat were totally biased against the victims and were fully siding with the state and the majoritarian perspective. This could open the system to charges of communalism and Islamophobia. But that has been normalised across the country and therefore has little traction on the ground or in rousing public opinion,” said noted social and human rights activist John Dayal.
In this situation, let’s watch and see what the Supreme Court pronounces in the said case.