The UPA II got a Punjabi judge elected to the UN appeals tribunal back in 2009. He returns the favor by publishing an article in 'India Law' suggesting that a judge can be prosecuted for handing down a perfectly legal sentence against the Dynasty without there being any evidence of corrupt practice, bad faith, or other judicial impropriety! If this were true, this stupid Judge would himself be liable to prosecution by anyone who appeared in his court who didn't like the verdict he delivered! Still, his Punjabi logic is impeccable. The first step in streamlining the Indian judicial system must be to strip judges of immunity and confer it on criminals. Unless this happens, the moon-calf, Rahul will keep getting sentenced to jail every couple of weeks. Would it not be better to lock up Judges so that Rahul can turn the country into a lunatic asylum?
It must be said, this retired judge is not as stupid as Gautam Bhatia who thinks a judge can be sued for defamation for things said in Court.
Still, regardless of Punjabi- or Bhatia- logic- Indian law is clear. Under the Judicial Officers Protection Act, 1850, certain persons acting in judicial capacity are conferred with immunity against any suit filed challenging an act done by him in while fulfilling his duty even if it fell outside his jurisdiction, if he had done so in good faith of having jurisdiction over it. It should be emphasized that if an individual has both an executive and a judicial function then immunity only arises if he acted in a particular instance in the latter capacity (Anowar Hussein v. AK Mukherjee). Recklessness, negligence and wilful abuse are exceptions but Indian law provides superior immunity to judges and quasi judicial bodies than English law which however has dispensed with contempt proceedings (though this remains in Scotland). A recent case is Rahendra Baglari v. The Sub divisional Judicial magistrate. The Court said 'The protection available under the Judges (Protection) Act, 1985 is absolute and is available not only to a sitting Judge but also to an Ex-Judge in respect of the actions taken or words spoken by him while discharging his official or judicial functions,' The Court levied a file on the petitioner stating '"If in passing every wrong or illegal judicial order, the concerned Judge is sued before the higher judicial forum, it shall result in demoralising the judicial officers, particularly, at the adjudicating level, other than the public losing faith in the judiciary. In case a purported illegal order is passed on wrong facts, law always provides for filing of appeal, revision or writ petition against the ORDER, however, not by impleading the Judge to seek his accountability."
The question is why Rahul's lawyers did not file a revision petition immediately? Why are Congress stooges, like this ex-Judge, crawling out of the woodwork to demand an end to the independence of the judiciary by withdrawing immunity from judges? Does this worthless shithead want a return to the dark days of Indira who demanded 'a committed judiciary'?
Let us now feast our eyes upon the following marvel of Punjabi juristic ratiocination-
Prosecution Resembling Persecution
While Rahul’s sentence is under Section 500 IPC and disqualification under the Representation of the People Act, is the trial judge guilty of serious misconduct for awarding maximum sentence?
No. He has immunity.
By Justice Kamaljit Singh Garewal
Who must have been personally very flattered by the interest which Rajiv took in the protection of his co-religionists in Delhi in 1984.
The Bard of Avon,
as opposed to the beard of Avon which adorned the pugri-wearer of Avon
while describing the end of the Battle of Bosworth Field (1485), in his play Richard III, has King Richard say: “A horse, a horse, my kingdom for a horse.” (Act V, Scene IV, Line 13). King Richard’s mount was fatally wounded under him and he was thrown off. He lost his horse as well as his kingdom. This battle was a defining one in English history, and thus began the Age of Reformation.
Utterly mad! The Reformation came to England in the reign of Henry VIII. This man is as ignorant as he is stupid.
At the end of the defamation trial on March 23, 2023, which led to Rahul Gandhi’s conviction and disqualification from the Lok Sabha, the Gandhi scion may well have said: “A joke, a joke, my prime ministerial ambitions for a joke.”
Fuck off! It is well known that Modis are all thieves. They stole Rahul's birthright just as they stole Garewal's brains and Chidu's integrity. Rahul is being prosecuted only because Modis have stolen all Righteousness and Virtue thus turning Congress into a bunch of ugly prostitutes.
Rahul Gandhi’s remark, which has landed him in a political storm, was totally avoidable and probably spoken in the rhetoric of an election campaign. It was a sentence torn from a long political speech, but it was quite improper and politically incorrect as it directly hit the prime minister. It was also quite a silly thing to say.
It was 'collective denunciation' which the Supreme Court had warned Rahul against in 2016. The thing was prima facie defamatory and constituted hate speech against a large, easily identifiable, class of people.
Surnames often become the butt of jokes. This writer, while sitting in a Division Bench, was once addressed (teasingly) as “M’lud Justice Aggarwal” by the Advocate-General of Punjab. The companion judge whispered in my ear: “This is a very offensive remark.”
Because Aggarwals are Banias while Garewals are Jats.
But I didn’t take umbrage, and simply thanked the Advocate-General for giving me a promotion.
Oho! Banias are one up on Jats are they?
End of the story. On another occasion, while meeting the chief justice of India on a visit to our court to address a function, I was introduced as Justice Aggarwal. I didn’t feel offended or slighted.
Good for you.
The travails of Rahul Gandhi can be traced to 2013. The Congress-led UPA government brought an ordinance to save MPs and MLAs from immediate disqualification if they were sentenced to two years or more. The ordinance gave them three months time to appeal, before getting disqualified to overcome the Supreme Court judgment in Lily Thomas’ case. What Rahul Gandhi thought of the ordinance is another sad story because what he said at the time was going to haunt him.
Fast forward to 2019. Rahul Gandhi spoke the offensive words in Kolar, Karnataka, but the hurt was felt by an MLA 1,300 km away in Surat, Gujarat.
Also by Sushil Modi in Bihar. A large, easily identified class of people had been criminally defamed.
And thus began his prosecution, though not quite persecution, and he was led into a well laid trap.
He laid it himself, climbed into it and then obstinately refused to apologize though advised to do so by Advocate Aslam.
Rahul Gandhi was summoned, tried, convicted and sentenced to two years. Result: immediate disqualification from the Lok Sabha, where he represents Wayanad constituency in Kerala. Nothing illegal or unlawful in what happened. It was all on the basis of the provisions of the Representation of the People, Act, 1951.
If so, why suggest the CJM was guilty of misconduct.
Without having read the trial court’s 170-page judgment, one can only say that the defence was very badly conducted. It is obvious that two years’ sentence for a slightly defamatory remark is completely out of proportion to the offence. Anyone can see that the object of the sentence was to ensure Rahul Gandhi’s immediate disqualification from the Lok Sabha. Should the magistrate have imposed such a hard sentence? Can it be believed that the magistrate did not know the consequences?
The magistrate gave leave to appeal. The intention was to admonish and change the behavior of the defendant who has ignored repeated warnings by the Supreme Court. In a case of defamation, obstinate refusal to withdraw the harmful utterance materially affects quantum of punishment.
Rahul Gandhi, as a serious politician, an MP, a leader of a major national party, son, grandson and great-grandson of prime ministers, should not have ignored the gravity of his predicament. He could have overcome it by a simple apology or a plea bargain and got off with a much lighter sentence of fine of only Rs 15,000. He would have been saved the ignominy of disqualification. And earned political peace to continue his political march; he still has East-West to cover.
So, Garewal is saying the boy is stoooooopid. The whole thing is a stunt.
Surname is a subject which Rahul Gandhi should be clear about or leave well alone. Post conviction, in defence Rahul said he is a Gandhi and is not afraid of anything because his religion is Truth. Everyone thinks he is from the Mahatma’s family, which he is not. Rahul’s grandfather was Feroze Jehangir Gandhi (1912-1960),
Ghandy. Feroze changed his name.
a rare investigative journalist, an outstanding parliamentarian and an upholder of truth. Feroze Gandhi launched a relentless campaign against Haridas Mundhra in 1957. Mundhra had made government-owned LIC invest Rs 1.25 crore in his six troubled companies to prop up their share price. Feroze Gandhi’s pursuit of Mundhra was much to the dislike of his father-in-law, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. Ultimately, an inquiry was ordered into the affair, which was conducted by Justice MC Chagla. The indictment against Haridas Mundhra and TT Krishnamachari, Nehru’s finance minister, came in 24 days. TTK resigned and Mundhra had to spend 22 years in prison. Rahul Gandhi should use his grandfather’s name to pursue Adani, but he is seeking the Mahatma to prop him up in his pursuit for Truth, whatever that means in the present context.
His paternal grandfather called his grandmother a Fascist. His maternal grandfather was an actual Italian Fascist.
Be that as it may, Rahul Gandhi must appeal. On filing the appeal, his conviction shall get suspended and he shall be back in the Lok Sabha. Should he not appeal, he shall be taken into custody after the suspension period of one month gets over, to undergo the two years’ sentence. On completing it, he shall stand disqualified from running for election for six more years. This shall keep him away from Parliament till April 2031.
Only if he can get in on a by-election. Otherwise it will be 2034.
The constitutional history of India is witness to the background of the 1st Constitutional Amendment, 1951, when Rahul’s great grandfather had some important clauses of the Constitution re-written to suit his socialist agenda.
and to kill off free speech. But Nehru couldn't pack the Bench because Judges threatened to resign en masse. Indira, however, didn't care if they all committed suttee. She wanted and got a pliant judiciary. The question is whether CJI Chandrachud will defy the Dynasty just as his father did.
Rahul’s grandmother was unseated by the Allahabad High Court, which led to changes in law to help her survive and when protests erupted, Indira Gandhi declared Emergency. But being asked to leave the Lok Sabha for the ineptness of his defence team in a defamation trial is an absurd way to be forced to bow out of politics.
Bas karo Judge SahibQ We get it. Rahul is a clown.
One is not certain how many other criminal cases are pending against Rahul Gandhi. If they too start ending in convictions and sentences of two years and upwards, then will those sentences start when the present sentence ends and will the disqualifications kick in after the present disqualification ends? The thought is mind boggling.
What is mind boggling is that Congress's slavishness towards this muddle-headed Messiah.
And what happens to the hundreds of other prosecutions against politicians which are awaiting trial. This is a really serious issue. The general public would definitely like to know why MPs and MLAs, who are facing prosecution and who may likely be convicted for two years and above, participate in proceedings till they are disqualified on conviction. The answer is that every accused person is innocent till proven guilty and this presumption of innocence enables him to remain in public life for a long, long time. Parliament must take a holistic view of corruption in public life and decide how to handle MPs and MLAs involved in criminal cases.
Parliament isn't the problem. It is the Bench which has to overturn Lily Thomas. Justice Thomas has signaled he would be prepared to do so. Everything now depends on the Master of the roster.
Ultimately, it is the criminal justice system which is under test. Too many cases, too much time spent before trial and appellate courts, too many acquittals. All these factors have slowed down the system. If the system collapses under its own weight, then justice itself will become a pipe dream. The justice ministers at the central and state levels must devote more time to monitoring prosecution of criminal cases. Give the guilty quick and condign punishment. Is anyone prepared to work in this direction?
Sure. Surat CJM did so. But then UPA stooges like this author come crawling out to the woodwork to suggest that criminals should get immunity. Judges should be sent to jail.
Let us examine what happens after the evidence had been led. The judge must decide if the charges have been proved or not. If proved, then what offence has been committed by the accused, and convict him accordingly. He must then proceed to hear the convicted person regarding the sentences to be imposed on him and announce the verdict. At this hearing, the judge must explore probation or admonition under Section 360 CrPC before awarding prison sentence.
Any infirmity in the judgement in this respect gives rise only to the remedy of appeal. It does not give rise to any action against the Judge.
The judgment will disclose the factors which the judge considered in awarding him the maximum sentence of two years. There does not seem to be anything so extreme in Rahul Gandhi’s case to deny probation or admonition or just fine,
The CJM mentions refusal to heed the Supreme Court's admonition. Rahul's case was that there is no Modi caste. Yet his own lawyer- one Panwala- said that he is himself a Modi! Most Modis love BJP. Panwala, who is 70 years old, loves Dynasty only.
and award of the maximum prison sentence with an eye to ensure his disqualification.
A legislator who habitually indulges in 'collective denunciation' and criminal defamation and hate speech should be disqualified. He should rot in jail, not roam around inciting hatred and enmity against large classes of people.
The trial judge seems to have committed serious misconduct.
What misconduct? His action was neither reckless, negligent, or in bad faith. The petitioner had secured two High Court orders which spelled out the ratio to be used. On that basis, the new CJM (the old one seems to have been prejudiced in Rahul's favor) disposed of the case quickly and according to the letter of the law. Rahul's defense team was shit. Must the judge be prosecuted because Congress hires rubbish lawyers?
This has sent shock waves for its disproportionality, and made an ordinary prosecution for defamation look like the persecution of the Hon’ble Member from Wayanad.
Who won't stand from there again. Maybe Stalin will give him Kanyakumari.
No comments:
Post a Comment