The stay on Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in the Modi defamation case should not come as a surprise to anybody. The matter is, after all, in the Supreme Case, and relief to the appellant is the natural way to go in such matters. The Congress may celebrate this as a ‘victory’ for the purpose of public perceptions, but the case has not been settled either way. It would have been strange if it had, as it was unlikely and would have been unusual (considering the pace at which the Indian Judiciary, including the Supreme Court, functions).
There is no doubt that Rahul Gandhi has been badly advised in the matter and poorly represented in the various courts. It basically stems from his persona being projected in public as being too exalted – owing to his lineage – to be subject to ordinary laws. He cannot personally be blamed for this attitude because, for much of his life, he has been treated by all he knows as such. However, the Congress and the Gandhi Family have not been in power for some time now and this presumption is increasingly under strain. For the Congress, nothing would be better if the public accepts his ‘birthright’ to be Prime Minister, but it does put him in the crosshairs. He remains unsuspecting of the implications.
The SC has asked why the ‘maximum’ punishment has been delivered in the case. The reason is simple – he has remained unrepentant and claimed he has done nothing wrong. It has been projected that, unlike Vir Savarkar, he ‘does not apologise’. Well, there is a price to be paid for such disregard for the law. Criminal Defamation remains on the legal statutes in India and there is the prescribed maximum punishment. The fact that Rahul was a Member of the Lok Sabha and other laws kicked in leading to his disqualification has nothing to do with the defamation issue. No person can claim that punishment ‘inconveniencing’ him or her is unjust. The more one has to lose, the more careful one should be in adhering to the law.
In the present circumstances, it will be difficult for Rahul Gandhi to obtain exoneration, especially as he continues to adopt a belligerent and impenitent attitude. His lawyers will have to present arguments that reduce the quantum of sentence, for the specific purpose of his contesting the elections. Or, he could apologise! That’s all that anybody had wanted.
