Apropos of the Rahul defamation case: Kapil Sibal- that soothsaying Sybil of Stupidity- suggests that India needs to Amend law to protect MPs, MLAs
This is strange. MPs and MLAs, by the nature of their jobs, must understand the need to use parliamentary language and the necessity of avoiding defamatory language or hate speech. Why should the law be amended to protect only those who have a higher duty of care with respect to what they say? There is no 'chilling effect' on alethic or good faith speech concerned with public policy or the conduct of the administration.
Why is Sibal making such an absurd demand? The answer, no doubt, is that some Modi has stolen his brain.
The substantive issue is whether such a law, which results in disqualification of a Member of Parliament, requires to be amended to provide safeguards to a sitting member.
Why not give legislators immunity from arrest? Oh. Criminals would get elected so as to kill their rivals with impunity.
Rahul Gandhi’s speech in Kolar, Karnataka, led to his conviction by a Chief Judicial Magistrate (CJM) in Surat, Gujarat. He was sentenced for two years in a proceeding for criminal defamation. The process which led to his conviction and the conviction itself have raised issues that need to be addressed both from the point of view of law and politics.
Nonsense! Rahul had been admonished by the Supreme Court against 'collective denunciation' in 2016 but just went ahead and did it anyway. The only real issue here is why Rahul- who has been an MP for 19 years- can't control his tongue. Why does he babble actionable nonsense?
Before delving into any of these issues, let us first understand what Rahul Gandhi said on April 13, 2019, while addressing a rally in Karnataka: “I have a question. Why do all of them—all of these thieves—have Modi Modi Modi in their names? Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Narendra Modi. And if we search a bit more, many more such Modis will come out.”
This isn't jus defamatory. It is hate speech. The hereditary leader of a party with 45 million members and which rules States like Rajasthan has told his acolytes to discriminate against and show hostility towards people with the surname Modi. Since it is well known that there is also a caste of that name, Rahul has targeted people of a particular caste by stigmatizing them as likely to be thieves. Incidentally, Narendra Modi is not a thief. Rahul's family may have looted the country. Modi has not done so.
For what he said, a former Gujarat minister and BJP MLA, Purnesh Modi, chose to prosecute him for criminal defamation on April 16, 2019. On the face of it, the statement cannot be regarded as an affront to the entire “Modi community”.
Yes it can. Substitute 'Khan' for Modi and 'terrorist' for 'thief' and see what you get. Recall Shahrukh's film 'My name is Khan and I am not a terrorist'. The thing speaks for itself.
Rahul Gandhi merely asked why all those alleged “thieves” have “Modi” attached to their names.
Similarly we may merely ask why all rapists who butcher and eat the children they have molested are known as Kapil Sibal. We may also ask why nobody who cares about children is not beating Kapil Sibal to death. Indeed, while stabbing him, we ourselves may be merely pursuing an inquiry into the question 'how do you like being stabbed you fat tub of lard?' In all these cases, can the mere raising of an innocent question be legally actionable?
The answer is 'yes'. Section 499 spells the matter out.
Nirav Modi and Lalit Modi are known to be on the government’s radar. Both have chosen not to come back to India. Rahul Gandhi did not say that every Modi is a thief. He only asked why “these thieves” have “Modi” attached to their names.
I never said Kapil Sibal rapes kids. I merely asked why every cannibal who devours the flesh of the children he rapes is called Kapil Sibal. Admittedly, Kapil Sibal is not a cannibal. But then Narendra Modi is not a thief. For that matter, neither are Nirav or Lalit. Whatever charges they may face, theft is not one of them.
Any conviction on the basis that Rahul Gandhi defamed the entire “Modi community” is suspect.
No it isn't. Look at the two High Court orders in the case. If the thing is 'suspect', then only the Supreme Court can offer relief.
Besides, there is no such identifiable “Modi community” which could be aggrieved by what Rahul Gandhi said.
Yet Rahul's own lawyer said he was himself a Modi. Moreover, most Modis supported the BJP. Thus there was an identifiable 'Modi community' and Rahul felt animosity towards them because they generally supported a rival party.
Rahul Gandhi appeared for the first time before the CJM’s court in Surat on June 24, 2021, to record his statement in person.
The CJM favored Rahul. He excluded electronic evidence improperly. The complainant was within his rights to get Rahul to either testify re. that evidence or let the Court draw its own conclusions from a refusal to offer such testimony. This was clarified by the High Court order which quashed certain decisions of the CJM
In March 2022, the complainant requested that Rahul Gandhi be summoned again. The court, rejecting the request, insisted that the complainant proceed to address the court on the merits of the case.
But the Court wrongly held certain evidence inadmissible. The High Court order quashed this and sent the matter back to the trial court. Since the CJM was partial they granted a stay so the matter could be taken up a new judge. There is nothing mysterious about this at all. Perhaps Congress had bribed the original CJM or he was biased in their favor. What is certain is that the new CJM, mindful of the High Courts orders, disposed of the case with alacrity. The trouble with bribing one judge is that another may be appointed by and by.
Interestingly, the complainant rushed to the high court and sought a stay of the proceedings before the trial court.
This was granted because it was obvious that the CJM was biased if not bribed. Sibal has been a lawyer long enough to know how these things work.
On March 7, 2022, the trial was stayed. It is rare that a complainant, who seeks to prosecute, rushes to the high court to have the trial stayed unless he believes that there is little likelihood of his succeeding before the trial court.
Because the Judge is biased or has been bribed. Things like this happen all the time. The superior court naturally wishes to avoid scandal so this is how such matters are resolved. Congress may have bought one judge but not all judges are corrupt.
The trial remained stayed for about a year.
Because the CJM- whether biased or bribed or simply stupid- remained in place.
Curiously, the complainant withdrew his petition before the high court.
Because the new CJM had a reputation for honesty.
Immediately thereafter, the trial resumed on February 27, 2023; this time, before another CJM, H H Varma. In between, Rahul Gandhi had been targeting a particular businessman, who has become the subject of controversy for his phenomenal rise as a businessman, and the wealth his companies have accumulated is allegedly attributed to his proximity to the prime minister.
Rahul had joined certain foreign groups with an interest in bringing down Adani. This is because Rahul is anti-national. But this does not alter the fact that the case was registered in 2019. Adanis don't belong to the Modi caste.
On March 8, 2023, Rahul Gandhi’s counsel challenged the locus of Purnesh Modi, claiming that Rahul Gandhi’s impugned speech targeted individuals and not the so-called “Modi community”.
A couple of weeks later that same silly man- Panwala by name- asserted that he himself was a Modi but, unusually for one of his caste, he was anti-BJP.
The quick withdrawal of proceedings in the high court, resumption of the trial, timing of the proceedings and sudden hearing of the matter raises questions, which in time, may perhaps be answered.
The question is whether CJM Dave was bribed, biased or just plain stupid. We don't greatly care to know the answer. Justice has been done- though a superior court may reduce the quantum of punishment.
Admittedly, Rahul Gandhi does not reside in Gujarat.
Admittedly, he travels there frequently and no great hardship was incurred by him by attending court.
Criminal defamation should, if at all, have been filed in Karnataka.
The High Court clarified that 'inherent power' meant jurisdiction was irrelevant so long as the interests of justice were served.
Purnesh Modi chose Surat perhaps with the expectation that he would be able to persuade the CJM to convict Rahul Gandhi.
He lives in Surat. How was he supposed to know which CJM was on the Congress pay-roll? Judges don't advertise such things.
The procedure to be followed in matters where persons reside outside the jurisdiction of the court requires the magistrate to hold an inquiry before issuance of summons or for the CJM to direct an investigation. Neither was done.
If so, why did Rahul's lawyers say nothing? Was it because they had bribed the Judge? Did they hope that getting the case dismissed in Surat would cause the quashing of a similar case in Bihar?
Besides, the Supreme Court itself has frowned upon using criminal defamation as a measure of harassment.
The Supreme Court has frowned on Rahul's reckless disregard for the truth and habit of 'collective denunciation'. Here, the punishment is the process. Either Rahul learns his lesson or else he will have to go on appearing in umpteen courts on umpteen such charges. Now the Adanis have turned the corner, they may themselves pursue Rahul through the courts for civil defamation. Indeed, this can be done in other jurisdictions where Rahul has assets. Who knows where all that might be? The problem with going after a big beast is that you must be sure of putting it down permanently. Otherwise it may come after you.
The substantive issue is whether such a law, which results in disqualification of a Member of Parliament, requires to be amended to provide safeguards to a sitting member.
No. The substantive issue is whether any such amendment would violate the 'Basic Structure' of the Constitution. It is not the case that legislators can have a superior immunity with relation to the criminal law of the land. Sibal is strangely ignorant of Constitutional Law.
Even in the context of corrupt practices indulged in by candidates during electoral processes, the law allows the candidate to file an appeal but does not allow disqualification before the decision in the appeal.
Nonsense! Justice Sinha, when disqualifying Indira, gave her party 20 days to replace her. That was an ad hoc grace period. The Supreme Court stayed the order 12 days later. Since 2013, the law is clear. Disqualification is immediate if there is a conviction and a sentence of two or more years in prison. Corrupt practices may attract such a penalty. It depends.
One can understand an MP or MLA being deprived of his membership if he is convicted for the offence of murder, which might visit him with a sentence of life imprisonment, or such other offences which are serious in nature for which the sentence provided is more than seven years.
Whereas saying 'all Modis are thieves' or 'all Khans are terrorists' or 'why are all cannibal child-rapists named Kapil Sibal?' is perfectly fine. BTW Hitler never killed anyone with his own hands. He merely raised questions about why all thieves are Jewish and other such matters.
There, too, the law must provide for an opportunity to the convicted candidate to seek stay of conviction within a certain period, during which his or her membership of the House should not be subjected to disqualification.
The law does provide this opportunity. As a matter of fact, an MP accused of murder has had that conviction stayed. It is likely he will be readmitted to Parliament. The same may happen in Rahul's case. Why bring in a new law when an avenue of redress already exists?
An ordinance in 2013 sought to provide for a period of 90 days within which the convicted MP or MLA can seek stay of conviction to protect his or her seat in Parliament or Legislative Assembly. The ordinance did not become law
thanks to Rahul. But, the fact is, the ordinance may have been struck down as against the 'Basic Structure'.
and consequently, there are no safeguards for MPs or MLAs being convicted on the basis of frivolous cases.
MPs and MLAs have the same safeguards you or I have. Most importantly, if you didn't do the crime, you won't do the time- unless, of course, Congress has bribed the Judge.
Recently, Abdullah Azam Khan lost his seat in the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly pursuant to being convicted for a period of two years on the ground that he along with his father, Azam Khan, violated Section 353 and other provisions of the Indian Penal Code by sitting on dharna on a state highway in January 2008, thereby deterring the public servants from discharging their duty.
Azam Khan is not a dreaded gangster. He does not have more than hundred criminal cases registered against him. He is an angel in human form. Sadly some Modis stole his good name. It is those same Modis who stole the good name of Osama Bin Laden. Ask Akhilesh bhaiyya. He will tell you.
In case of Rahul Gandhi, the magistrate knew that any sentence of less than two years would have saved his membership of the Lok Sabha.
and thus the silly boy would see no reason to mend his ways. Disqualification is a wake up call. Let us see if the mooncalf takes heed.
The law needs to be amended.
To protect corrupt, brain-dead, dynasts- sure. But will the Bench permit the destruction of the Basic Structure?
Not protecting an MP or MLA for a frivolous conviction like the one in the Rahul Gandhi case is grossly unjust.
Because MPs and MLAs are very poor and ignorant and feeble minded. They must get special privileges unavailable to ordinary people. This is because their brains and integrity have been stolen by people surnamed Modi. Meanwhile, we may well ask why only those named Kapil Sibal are cannibalistic pedophiles?
Today and since 2014, laws are being used for political ends and to settle political scores.
Sibal was part of an administration which tried to prosecute imaginary 'Hindu terrorists'
That is a matter of concern not just with reference to Rahul Gandhi alone. Democracy can be subverted in many ways.
Dynasticism is one such way. Sibal is now the serf of a Yadav, not a Gandhi, dynasty.
Throwing out elected governments is one such way.
Voters throw out elected governments, if- like Sibal's UPA 2- it is utterly shit. This is very unjust- according to Sibal.
Using judicial processes is another.
When a citizen brings a criminal case against a politician, that politician may be sent to jail and disqualified. How is this compatible with democracy? Do such things happen in Yurop/Amrika? No! If Presidentji sodomizes and strangles members of Public in Oval Office is he arrested? No! Some evil people are saying 'Nixon broke the law. So he had to resign to get Presidential pardon and avoid Jail time'. This is totally false! US Supreme Court came to Nixonji and offered themselves for punitive sodomy and strangulation on Network TV itself! This was to show that in a true Democracy even a shitty little nominated member of the Upper House is not just above the Law- he or she is the LAW! Mind it kindly. Aiyayo, some nasty Modi has stolen the loud fart I was about to emit so as to show my condign appreciation of Sibal's great legal acumen.
No comments:
Post a Comment