Mobilenews24x7 Bureau
Is it so that the sessions court in Surat could have skipped a wide spread discussion by reversing its own verdict by giving Rahul Gandi a relief by reversing its own decision.
Mobilenews24x7 browsed through a series of opinions aired by legal luminaries in India to gather that, the punishment meted out to the Congress leader for his speech in Kolar and referring to the ‘Modi surname’ that was being viewed as not so to invite criminal defamation.
One legal expert seeking anonymity said that, “the punishment of two years and the day next leading to his disqualification from the MP post was obviously far too stretched. It could have been taken with a little leniency” he added.
Quoting the senior advocate a news agency said that, “as a MP from certain constituency that latter enjoys a fundamental right to make an election speech and he cannot be debarred”.
Which means that there were enough grounds for the sessions court to at least suspend the conviction. And it isn’t as if this hasn’t been done before.
There are precedence like in 2007, the Supreme Court suspended the conviction and sentence of Navjot Singh Sidhu in a road rage so that he could contest the Amritsar Lok Sabha by-poll
Similarly, this year, the Kerala High Court suspended the conviction and sentence of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal in an attempt to murder case. And his membership was restored by the Lok Sabha.
Whereas, in the case of Rahul Gnadhi the sessions judge instead chose to uphold the lower court’s order.
