New Delhi: The Gujarat Congress leader Hardik Patel’s conviction in the Mehsana riots case of 2015 [Hardik Bharatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat] was stayed by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The Gujarat High Court’s stay of Patel’s conviction was likewise justified, according to a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath.
As a result, the Supreme Court granted Patel relief.
“Having heard Senior Counsel Maninder Singh and having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that this is the fit case for high court to have stayed the conviction. The conviction is, hereby, stayed until the appeals are decided accordingly,” the Court directed.
Patel was the driving force behind the Patidar movement in 2015, which demanded reservation for the Patidar community. The protests had resulted in violence, with a BJP MLA’s office being vandalized as a result.
The trial court found Patel guilty of arson rioting, property damage, and unlawful assembly for his role in the riots.
Prior to the 2019 General Elections, he sought a stay from the Gujarat High Court.
The High Court, on the other hand, had dismissed his appeal, preventing him from running in the elections.
He then proceeded to the highest court.
“Not allowing me contest election is a violation of my right to freedom of expression. It is a violation. I have already lost one chance to contest election in 2019,” Senior Counsel Maninder Singh said on behalf of Patel.
He maintained that the State is misusing Police powers.
“We are before your lordships to get our rights under Article 19(1)(a) to be enforced. I am not a serious killer. They have misused the police power. Therefore, I don’t know what they have to say, but my lords must decide this case soon,” Singh submitted.
The State of Gujarat’s Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta stated that Patel’s election campaign is not the matter before the Court. Instead, the case should be decided using criminal law characteristics.
“In criminal law, there is no one standard guidelines to say which one is right. Your lordship may decide the issue. Whether Patel might have won or not, is not the issue in this case,” he contended. The SG also pointed out that there is one case under Section 395 IPC (dacioty).
“There is one case under section 395 IPC, which is really serious,” he said.
The Court after hearing both sides proceeded to grant interim relief.
As an independent media platform, we do not take advertisements from governments and corporate houses. It is you, our readers, who have supported us on our journey to do honest and unbiased journalism. Please contribute, so that we can continue to do the same in future.
