Rahul Gandhi stated that he was “treated harshly at the stage of determination of sentence taking into account his position as Member of Parliament”
New Delhi: Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification as MP is a hot topic in the political world. Apart from his disqualification news of him being convicted by the Surat Court in the 2019 defamation case too was in the headlines.
Rahul Gandhi on Monday moved a Surat court against his conviction in the case. He stated that he was “treated harshly at the stage of determination of sentence taking into account his position as Member of Parliament.”
In his appeal before Surat District & Sessions Court, against his two-year conviction, he said that it appeared “reasonable to argue” that the harshest punishment he could receive was “attracting the order of disqualification (as an MP)”.
The appeal reads, “Not only is the excessive sentence contrary to the law on the subject but is also unwarranted in the present case which has overriding political overtones.”
In the appeal, the conviction of Rahul Gandhi is termed imprecise. It states material on which it is based has not been proved in accordance with the law.
Also Read: Rahul Gandhi In Court Today To Challenge Conviction
Gandhi’s appeal claims that a by-election would impose an “enormous burden on the state exchequer” and that the disqualification of an elected official “basically interferes with the choice of the electorate in a free and fair election.”
In his appeal, he sought suspension of the sentence and bail. Gandhi noted that the punishment of two years of simple imprisonment is very harsh. It is harsh in a view of the fact that the lower court has inflicted the same for a single defamatory imputation as to ‘why all the thieves have the surname, Modi.’
Rahul Gandhi’s application says complainant/respondent Purnesh Modi “is not the person aggrieved of the offense and has no right to file the complaint.” It also stated that the mandatory inquiry under Section 202 of CrPC to be held before summons are issued to the accused “of outside the jurisdiction of the court is not held.”
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.
