Quantum of sentence raises vital questions

With the Gujarat High Court dismissing Rahul Gandhi’s plea seeking a stay on his conviction in a criminal defamation case over his ‘Modi surname’ remark, the Congress leader is running out of legal remedies to stall his disqualification as a Lok Sabha MP and be eligible to contest the General Election next year. The High Court observed that the lower court’s order handing out a two-year jail term to Rahul was ‘just, proper and legal’. The HC’s decision has evoked contrasting political reactions: the BJP has welcomed upholding of the session court’s order, while the Congress has called it ‘a travesty of justice’.

What’s contentious is the quantum of sentence. Rahul has been awarded the maximum punishment for defamation under Section 500 of the IPC. Any prison term of less than two years — say six months or one year — would have sufficed to meet the ends of justice and also saved the Congress MP from disqualification. Notably, the Kerala High Court had suspended the conviction and 10-year sentence of disqualified Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal in an attempt-to-murder case, paving the way for the lawmaker’s reinstatement earlier this year.

The fast-tracking of the proceedings in the trial court, followed by Rahul’s conviction and sentence, led to speculation that the whole exercise was aimed at ensuring his disqualification. Even as Rahul is set to approach the Supreme Court, he faces the prospect of being relegated to the sidelines of electoral politics if he fails to get relief. In due course, the apex court should take into account the implications that Rahul’s ‘disproportionate’ sentence would have for free speech in a democratic polity. The bigger issue of decriminalizing defamation also needs to be addressed by the judiciary and the lawmakers.
(Tribune, India)