‘Some Judgments From Gujarat High Court Make For Very Interesting Reading’: Supreme Court Judge Observes during Rahul Gandhi’s Hearing

Supreme Court judge BR Gavai, who headed the bench that stayed the conviction of Congress leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case today, observed during the hearing that he has recently come across ‘interesting’ judgements from the Gujarat High Court, which ran into hundreds of pages. He explained that the single-judge bench that refused to issue a stay on the legislator’s conviction, had written at length about the standard of conduct expected from Members of Parliament, but had not examined the crucial issue of why the sentencing court had not supplied any reason for imposing the maximum sentence under the law for an offence of criminal defamation. Justice Gavai said: “The trial judge has granted a maximum sentence of two years. The sentence is two years or fine or both. So, when the maximum sentence is granted, there has to be some reasoning given. Not a whisper by the trial judge. Not only the right of one individual, but that of the entire electorate was affected by this judgment. The high court judge has widely discussed that Parliament members are not entitled to a special treatment. But he has not touched the other aspect of the matter. He said that being a Member of Parliament was not a ground for granting special concessions.” Senior Advocate Mahesh Jethmalani chimed in by saying that people’s representatives ought to be held to a higher standard of conduct. Justice Gavai replied, “That is what the high court judge says. He elaborates on what should be expected of a Member of Parliament. This 125-page-long judgment makes a very interesting reading. Some of the judgments coming from the solicitor-general’s state make a very interesting reading.” “When he becomes the solicitor-general, he speaks for the whole country,” Jethmalani pointed out, before adding that Gujarat was indeed Solicitor-General for India Tushar Mehta’s home state. “That’s what I meant,” Justice Gavai said, “I still say I belong to Amravati in Maharashtra.” Solicitor-General Mehta himself interjected at this point. “I also belong to Gujarat. I say that proudly.” The law officer, then, explained that high courts often delivered judgments running into hundreds of pages because of the Supreme Court's insistence on well-reasoned rulings. He said: “Since it is my parent high court, I must point this out. Many times, not giving reasons is criticised by the Supreme Court, which is why judges try to give elaborate reasons. But, any remark…I am saying this with folded hands…can be demoralising for high courts.” Justice Gavai said that these were not ‘off-the-cuff’ remarks, but were prompted by two recent judgments he has recently come across. The judge was seemingly referring to the Gujarat High Court judgment’s denying regular bail to social activist Teesta Setalvad, which the top court set aside last month. During the hearing of Teesta's bail also, Justice Gavai had made similar observations about the High Court order omitting to consider relevant aspects despite being long. He added, “We know these can be demoralising, which is why, we are slow to make such remarks. I am the last person to make any observation unless it is glaring.” A three-judge bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Sanjay Kumar today heard and allowed Gandhi’s plea challenging the Gujarat High Court's refusal to stay his conviction in a criminal defamation case over 'Modi thieves' remark, which resulted in his disqualification from the Lok Sabha. The remark dates back to a political rally at Karnataka’s Kolar in 2019. Accusing Gandhi of defaming everyone with a ‘Modi’ surname, Bharatiya Janata Party MLA and former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi filed a complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 over this alleged remark. The scion of the Gandhi family approached the Supreme Court after he was turned away by a local court in Gujarat as well as the high court in the state. Even in the order that it pronounced allowing Gandhi's plea, the top court touched on the length of the rulings given by the courts below it, saying:“...Particularly when the offence was non-cognizable, bailable, and compoundable, the least that was expected from the learned trial judge was to give reasons for imposing the maximum punishment. Though the learned appellate court and the high court have spent voluminous pages in rejecting the applications, these aspects are not seen considered.” Case Details Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 8644 of 2023

‘Some Judgments From Gujarat High Court Make For Very Interesting Reading’: Supreme Court Judge Observes during Rahul Gandhi’s Hearing

Awstika Das

Tags