By Ritika Jain
Supreme Court on Friday observed that the trial court judge in Surat did not give any reasons for imposing the maximum sentence as it staying—pending final adjudication—Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's conviction and two-year-jail term in the criminal defamation case.
In the run-up to the 2024 General Elections, the Supreme Court’s decision is important because with his conviction stayed, Gandhi's Lok Sabha membership stands restored. The provision of the Representation of People’s Act kicked resulting in Gandhi’s disqualification as the Wayanad MP when the trial court judge imposed a two-year jail term. Because of this disqualification, Gandhi was ineligible to run for elections for eight years.
The bench noted that provisions of the Representation of People’s Act, which led to Gandhi’s disqualification as the Wayanad MP, came into play only on account of this maximum sentence, the bench observed. “Had the sentence been a day lesser, provisions would not have been attracted,” it added.
The top court acknowledged that being a public figure, Gandhi should have been more circumspect in what he said in public. “No doubt that utterances are not in good taste…a person in public life expected to exercise caution while making public speeches. As observed by this court while accepting his affidavit in contempt petition, he ought to have been more careful..., Justice BR Gavai said reading out the order.
Justice Gavai was referring to the Supreme Court’s observation in Gandhi’s contempt case over his “Chowkidar Chor Hai” remark”.
“Had the Supreme Court made these observations before Gandhi made his speech, he would have been more careful before making such remarks [All Modis are thieves] which are alleged to be defamatory,” Justice Gavai added.
The Supreme Court’s verdict today came on Gandhi’s plea seeking a stay on his conviction and jail term in the criminal defamation case where he said “All Modis are thieves”.
Also Read:Rahul Gandhi Conviction For Criminal Defamation Just, Proper: Gujarat HC
Reasons expected while imposing maximum sentence: SC
The Supreme Court observed that the trial court as expected to give some reasons as to why he found it necessary to impose the maximum sentence of two years. “Except the admonition by the Supreme Court, no other reason has been granted for this [imposition of maximum sentence] by the trial judge,”...bench led by Justice BR Gavai said.
The trial and the appellate court have spent voluminous pages rejecting a stay on conviction, the trial and the appellate court did not consider modalities of the like particularly when the offence is non-cognizable, bailable, compoundable, SC said. The trial judge is expected to give reasons for imposing maximum sentence,” it added.
Also Read: Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case: What Happens When An MP/MLA Is Convicted
