Amid Celebrations across Congress HQs, Assam CM Takes Another Shot at RaGa

Amid celebrations at Congress offices across the country after the Supreme Court stayed Rahul Gandhi's conviction in the criminal defamation case, Assam Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma took another dig at the leader by displaying a copy of the Supreme Court's Verdict on Saturday.

The chief minister referring to verdict pronounced by the SC Bench comprising of justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha and Sanjay Kumar took to Twitter saying, “In Para 8, the Hon Supreme Court states -  the utterances by Rahul Gandhi are not in good taste; “a person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches and he ought to have been more careful.”

The Assam chief minister emphasized that the order clearly refers to Rahul Gandhi's 2019 contempt case before the Supreme Court, highlighting his credibility as a repeat offender.

Additionally, CM Sarma emphasised that the Supreme Court of India made it plain in Paragraph 12 that the stay will not have an impact on the ongoing appeals process at the lower court.

The following are the highlights of the Supreme Court judgement that halted Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's conviction in a 2019 defamation lawsuit for his Modi surname comment, paving the path for his Lok Sabha membership to be reinstated.

· Only on account of the maximum sentence of two years imposed by the trial judge, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950, have come into play.

· Had the sentence been even a day lesser, the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Act would not have been attracted.

· When an offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable, the least that the trial judge was expected to do was to give some reasons as to why, in the facts and circumstances, he found it necessary to impose the maximum sentence of two years.

· Appellate Court (Lower or Trial Court) and HC have spent voluminous pages while rejecting the application for stay of conviction, these aspects have not even been touched in their orders.

· No doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant are not in good taste.

· A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches.

· Rahul Gandhi ought to have been more careful while making the public speech.

· Ramification of subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Act are wide-ranging. They not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who have elected him, to represent their constituency.

· Pendency of Gandhi's appeal would not come in the way of the Appellate Court in proceeding further with the appeal.

Also Read: 'Heights of duplicity!' Assam CM Reacts to SC's Stay on Rahul Gandhi's Conviction