Kochi (Kerala) [India]: Hailing the Supreme Court’s stay on Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in the criminal defamation case over the use of the ‘Modi’ surname, Congress leader VD Satheesan said the ruling dealt a ‘big blow’ to the Centre.
Speaking to media, the Congress leader said the ruling has further affirmed people’s faith in the judicial system.
“It (the Supreme Court ruling upholding Rahul’s plea challenging his conviction by a Surat court in the defamation case) has come as a big blow to the government. It goes to show why the people still haven’t lost faith in the country’s jurisprudence,” Satheesan said.
“It was a conspiracy. The government fears Rahul Gandhi and his voice in Parliament,” he added.
Earlier, on Friday, the Supreme Court, while staying Rahul’s conviction in the criminal defamation case over the ‘Modi surname’ remark, observed that a person in public life is expected to exercise caution while making public speeches.
The Congress leader was also sentenced to two years in prison. However, the same was suspended, thereby allowing him to challenge his conviction at a higher court.
However, following his conviction, the Congress leader, who was elected an MP from Kerala Wayanad constituency, was stripped off his membership of the Lok Sabha.
The Lok Sabha Secretariat, in a notification on March 24, declared Rahul as being disqualified from the Lower House.
A three-judge Supreme Court bench, headed by Justice BR Gavai, said no reason was given by the trial court judge for imposing the maximum sentence, and the “order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication”.
The apex court, while granting relief to Rahul, said the ramifications of the trial court’s order are wide.
Not only was Rahul’s right to continue in public life affected but also that of the electorate who elected him, the bench observed.
The bench, however, noted that there is no doubt that the utterances of the Congress leader were “not in good taste” and “person in public life is expected to exercise caution while making public speeches”.
The top court further said Rahul ought to have been more careful.
“Trial judge has awarded maximum sentence of two years. Except for the admonition by Supreme Court, no other reason has been granted for this by the trial judge forwarding a maximum of two years of the sentence.
It is to be noted only on account of this maximum sentence, provisions of the Representation of People Act have come into play. Had the sentence been a day lesser, provisions would not have been attracted,” the bench stated in its order.
“When the offence is non-cognisable, bailable, or compoundable, the trial judge is expected to give reasons for imposing maximum sentence, the bench observed, adding, “Though the court has spent voluminous pages rejecting stay on conviction, these aspects are not considered in their orders.”
