The Supreme Court has stayed the conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in the 2019 defamation case over his Modi surname remark. Besides, his disqualification as an MP also remains in abeyance. Stay is ordered by the 3-judge Bench of the Supreme Court. By this stay, the disqualification of Rahul Gandhi as a Member of Parliament, elected from Wayanad constituency is likely to be reversed. The Bench has ruled that the sentence awarded to Rahul Gandhi by a Gujarat magistrate and his subsequent disqualification not only denies the full rights of the Congress leader to continue in public life but also affects the right of the electorate of the constituency that he represents and his eligibility to contest the forthcoming election.
The Supreme Court observed: Except the admonition to the petition by this court in a contempt case, no other reason has been granted by the learned trial judge while imposing the maximum sentence of two years. Had the sentence been a day lesser, then the provisions would not have been attracted. Further, the Bench said that when the offence was non-cognisable, bailable and compoundable, the least which was expected from the learned trial judge was to give some reasons to impose maximum sentence. Though the learned appellate court and the High Court have spent voluminous pages in rejecting the applications, these aspects were not seen considered.
Related articles
The stay,granted by the Bench may stop to some extent the erosion occurring in the democratic values of the present rulers of the country. People’s representation is the very core of democracy. By making the representation meaningless, and the disqualification as an MP, the Parliament Secretariat had acted as per the direction of the ruling dispensation. By the disqualification as an MP, Rahul Gandhi has already lost two sessions, thereby losing the legislative opportunities to speak on the country, the people, their problems and needs more so of the constituency he represents.
The stay was preceded by a piece of advice of the Bench not only to the appellant but also to people who are engaged in public life. “No doubt that the (alleged) utterances by petitioner are not in good taste.A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of caution while making public speeches.”
The Supreme Court has aptly advised the standard of public life to be maintained by all the people associated with it.
The stay in this contempt case is only interim – not final. The ultimate judgment would be delivered by the Supreme Court. However the stay has to be considered as a verdict on the political behaviour prevailing in the country. The stay has to be taken by the rulers in right spirit to arrest the heavy erosion that has been continuing in the Parliamentary democracy.
The reason quoted for the stay by the apex court will alert all the High Courts and the lower courts while dealing with defamation cases.The voice of the opposition is very much integral in democratic polity. The stay of conviction granted to Rahul Gandhi may also lead to revocation of his disqualification as a Member of the Parliament.
The Supreme Court has to be appreciated for the timely stay given. Judiciary is the ultimate resort for seeking justice required for the country as a whole and for an individual citizen. Strangled Democracy has been relieved through the stay declared by the Supreme Court!
