Now that the Supreme Court has stayed the conviction of Rahul Gandhi in the criminal defamation case, it falls upon the speaker of the Lok Sabha to stay Gandhi’s disqualification as swiftly as he was disqualified after being convicted.
—
IT is quite extraordinary that the Indian National Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was convicted by a lower court of Gujarat in a defamation case.
It is all the more astonishing that Gandhi was awarded the maximum sentence of two years without giving any reason for such conviction.
The sessions court and even the high court of Gujarat refused to stay the conviction on Rahul’s plea, and upheld the conviction and sentence pronounced by the subordinate court.
Only when Rahul Gandhi moved the Supreme Court appealing for stay of conviction did a three-judge Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, P.S. Narasimha and P.V. Sanjay Kumar categorically point out that in the absence of reasoning given by the trial court for imposing the maximum punishment under the offence, the conviction lacked foundation to sustain itself.
The Bench observed in their Order that: “Particularly when the offence was non-compoundable, bailable and cognisable, the least which was expected from the learned trial judge was to give reasons for imposing the maximum punishment.”
The Bench added, “Though the learned appellate court and the high court have spent voluminous pages in rejecting the applications, the aspects of giving reasoning have not been considered.”
The judgment flagged an invaluable point that Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification as member of Parliament (MP) because of his conviction … [he is] not only deprived him the right to represent lakhs of voters of the Wayanad Lok Sabha constituency but also deprived the right of the electorate of that constituency to be represented by him.
The judgment flagged an invaluable point that Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification as member of Parliament (MP) because of his conviction and the maximum sentence of two years of imprisonment awarded to him not only deprived him the right to represent lakhs of voters of the Wayanad Lok Sabha constituency but also deprived the right of the electorate of that constituency to be represented by him.
“You are not only affecting the rights of one individual but the rights of the entire constituency,” remarked Justice Gavai.
He also sharply noted, “So while the learned judge says merely because one is an MP is not a ground to give a concession, the other aspect is not touched upon.”
Also read: Supreme Court imposes interim stay on Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in defamation case
The Supreme Court stayed the conviction on the ground that the conviction of Rahul Gandhi is not based on any reasoning and his disqualification as MP violated his right to represent his parliamentary constituency and infringed upon the rights of the electorate who elected him to represent them in the Parliament.
It is well known that a judgment or Order that is not anchored in reasons and justifications is void in law. This principle has been upheld in numerous judgments of the higher judiciary of the country.
Abhishek Manu Singhvi, senior advocate and member of the Indian National Congress, who argued the case for Rahul Gandhi in the Supreme Court, stated that the court’s Order staying the conviction constituted a victory for Gandhi, and, more importantly, it represented a huge win for the Constitution, democracy and people of India in general.
Also read: What are the options available to Rahul Gandhi after his disqualification from the Parliament?
Singhvi also asserted that the Order of the Supreme Court defended those who displayed rare courage and conviction in the face of an all-out assault on the Indian democracy and Constitution.
Singhvi maintained that Rahul Gandhi went through the legal process very patiently, first by moving the appellate court and availing of the opportunities in the Gujarat High Court in the arduous quest for justice.
Only when his grievances were not redressed did he move before the Supreme Court.
All the steps Gandhi followed are based on his robust faith in the Indian judiciary and institutions of our country, Singhvi added.
In the Order, the Supreme Court has observed, “No doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant (Rahul Gandhi) are not in good taste.”
“A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches,” the court noted.
But Rahul Gandhi has made clear his principled stand that he is not going to apologise, come what may.
The Supreme Court stayed the conviction on the ground that the conviction of Rahul Gandhi is not based on any reasoning.
Stating that “Rahul Gandhi has time and again demonstrated courage and conviction”, Singhvi asserted that “his actions and his words have been animated by his thinking, which is ‘daro mat’ (fear not).”
Swift action needed to stay the disqualification
Now that the conviction has been stayed, the ground for Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification as an MP of Lok Sabha stands invalidated.
Therefore, his status as an MP should be restored as per the law established by the Supreme Court in its 2018 judgment in Lok Prahari versus Union of India, in which it was held that stay of conviction by the appellate court will stay disqualification.
Rahul Gandhi was disqualified as an MP within twenty-four hours of his conviction and got the maximum sentence of two years in the aforementioned defamation case.
He was even asked to vacate his official residence.
He duly complied with the instructions issued to him to vacate his official accommodation.
Now that his conviction has been stayed by the Supreme Court, it is hoped that his status as an MP will be restored as expeditiously as he was disqualified a few months back.
All the steps Gandhi followed are based on his robust faith in the Indian judiciary and institutions of our country, Singhvi added.
Any failure in putting an end to his disqualification by the Lok Sabha secretariat would smack of bias and malicious action in denying Rahul his due in accordance with the law of the land.
While the lower courts did not give any reasoning in convicting and sentencing him for two years, there are enough legal reasons and justifications to bring him back as an MP so that his own right to represent his constituency is restored and his electorate’s right to get represented in Lok Sabha is upheld.
In doing so, the majesty of the Constitution and constitutional morality will be defended.
