Supreme Court Extends BJP MLA Hardik Patel’s Interim Protection Till ‘Completion Of Further Process’ In Case Over Patidar Reservation Agitation

The Supreme Court on Friday extended the interim protection granted to Bharatiya Janata Party MLA Hardik Patel in a seven-year-old criminal case lodged against him over violent clashes during the 2015 Patidar quota stir in Gujarat. The bench clarified that subject to his ‘diligent participation’ in the further process, the interim protection would continue to operate till the completion of the said process. While disposing of a special leave petition preferred by Patel against the Gujarat High Court’s decision to deny him anticipatory bail, a division bench of Justices AS Bopanna and Hima Kohli pronounced: “This court had in February 2020, issued notice and had granted interim protection. Three and a half years have passed since then. In these circumstances, we see no reason to alter the order at this juncture. Hence, the interim protection granted to the petitioner shall continue till the completion of the further process, subject to his diligent participation in the process, if called upon to do so.” Background Under challenge was a February 2020 order of a single judge bench of the Gujarat High Court rejecting an anticipatory bail plea of then-Congress’s Gujarat president Hardik Patel in relation to a first information report (FIR) alleging unlawful assembly and provocative speech. In 2015, Patel had led a movement seeking the inclusion of Gujarat’s Patidar community in the ‘other backward classes’ (OBC) reservation pool. During the protests, Patel had addressed a massive gathering at the GDMC ground in Vastrapur, Ahmedabad. In the aftermath of the gathering, violence broke out in several parts of Gujarat, and 14 Patidar youths died in police firing during the affray. There were clashes between the police and the protestors at the ground as well, in which police personnel were allegedly injured and their vehicles damaged. Following this, an FIR was lodged against Patel and others at the Vastrapur police station under Sections 143 (punishment for unlawful assembly), 147 (punishment for rioting), 332 (voluntarily causing hurt to deter public servant from his duty), and 427 (mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. After the police complaint was filed, Patel sought anticipatory bail. However, both an Ahmedabad city court, as well as the state high court refused to grant Patel anticipatory bail in the case related to the GDMC assembly. In February 2020, without going into the merits of the case, Justice Vipul Pancholi of the Gujarat High Court rejected Patel’s plea for anticipatory bail in view of his ‘criminal antecedents’, not unlike the trial court before it. Justice Pancholi held: “It is not in dispute that there are antecedents of the applicant and 10 FIRs are registered against him. In one case, the applicant has been convicted. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, this court is of the view that custodial interrogation of the applicant is required. Looking to the antecedents of the applicant and his conduct, this court is not inclined to exercise discretion and grant discretionary relief in his favour.” However, less than two weeks after this verdict, an apex court bench headed by Justice UU Lalit (as he was then) granted the Congress leader interim protection from arrest. While issuing notice in his special leave petition, the top court also pulled up the Gujarat government for the delay in the investigation. The bench pronounced, “Pending further consideration, the petitioner shall not be arrested in connection with [this FIR]. During the agitation, Patel was also accused of ransacking the office of a Bharatiya Janata Party legislator representing the Visnagar constituency in another FIR. In 2018, a sessions court sentenced Patel to two years of imprisonment for rioting and arson during the Patidar reservation agitation. The Gujarat High Court had suspended the sentence but not the conviction. However, last year, when the matter travelled to the top court, a bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath suspended his conviction. Notably, under the Representation of the People Act, a convict facing a jail term of two years or more cannot contest an election unless their conviction is stayed. Last year in June, ahead of the Gujarat assembly elections, the former working president of the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee joined the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party. He was fielded as a candidate for the Viramgam constituency and was subsequently elected to the 15th Gujarat Legislative Assembly. Case Title Hardik Bharatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1719 of 2020Click Here To Read/Download Order

Supreme Court Extends BJP MLA Hardik Patel’s Interim Protection Till ‘Completion Of Further Process’ In Case Over Patidar Reservation Agitation

Awstika Das

Tags