New Delhi: Days after the Supreme Court stayed Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in a 2019 criminal defamation case over his ‘Modi surname’ remark, paving the way for his reinstatement as a Lok Sabha MP, it has come to light that papers for his restoration have been prepared. The spotlight remains on Lok Sabha Speaker Om Birla whose signature will confirm Rahul Gandhi’s reinstatement.
Sources have told NDTV that they will go to court if there’s a delay in the reinstatement of Rahul Gandhi to the Lok Sabha. Like it happened in the case of Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) MP Mohammed Faizal whose reinstatement had taken over a month until he moved the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court on August 4 put a stay on Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in the ‘Modi surname’ case. In 2019 during an election rally in Kolar of Karnataka, Rahul Gandhi remarked: “How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname?” – a comment Rahul Gandhi has persistently refused to apologise for.
The Supreme Court stayed Rahul Gandhi’s conviction on the grounds that the trial court in Surat of Gujarat did not explain why the Congress leader deserved a two-year sentence after his conviction in the ‘Modi surname’ case. His conviction also led to his disqualification as a Lok Sabha MP from Wayanad, Kerala.
The top court also noted that the sentence would not have attracted disqualification had it been a day lesser.
“Had sentence been a day lesser, provisions would not have been attracted, particularly when an offence is non-cognisable, bailable and compoundable. The least that is expected from the trial court judge was to give some reasons to impose maximum sentence. Though appellate court and high court have spent voluminous pages rejecting stay on conviction, these aspects are not considered in their orders,” the Supreme Court bench said.
The top court also noted that the remark by Rahul Gandhi was not in good taste. “No doubt the utterances were not in good taste and a person in public life is expected to exercise caution while making public speeches. Taking into consideration these and that no reason has been given by the trial judge for imposing the maximum sentence, the order of conviction needs to be stayed pending final adjudication,” the court said.
Comments are closed.