By questioning Rahul’s conviction, the Opposition party is undermining the judiciary

Within a couple of hours of his conviction by a Surat court, the party's legal luminary Abhishek Manu Singhvi spoke at length about the merits of the case. The Congress has a strong battery of lawyers practicing in India's higher courts. There have been occasions in the past when they rushed to the top court for judicial intervention in matters where their leaders are caught in discomfort.

However, the Congress did not approach the judicial authorities for relief from the Surat court sentence. It is not possible that Congress' legal eagles are aware of the Supreme Court order of 2013 which said that a conviction with a jail term of two or more years leads to automatic disqualification of a member of the legislatures—the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha and state Assemblies. Clearly, staging a political stunt, Congress leaders feigned ignorance that Gandhi was automatically disqualified upon his conviction by the Surat court magistrate. Curiously, Gandhi came to Parliament despite knowing he had already been disqualified.

This must have been clear to him more than to anyone else since it was he who had torn apart an Ordinance approved by the Union Cabinet, presided over by Manmohan Singh, the former prime minister. The Ordinance intended to dilute the Supreme Court ruling of automatic disqualification of membership of a convicted legislature member. If Rahul Gandhi claims that he did not know the import of the Supreme Court ruling of 2013, he is guilty of acting impulsively as an ignoramus. He tore apart the Ordinance at the Press Club of India in the presence of the press corps.

Rahul Gandhi is accused of impulsive behaviour. His willful resorted to defamatory utterances in the past. He is involved in several court cases. He is also on bail in the National Herald case. He has only shown that he is an incorrigible bully of Indian politics, from insulting Manmohan Singh to demeaning Indian democracy on foreign soil in London. The Congress’ yearning for sympathy votes is old. The party daydreams that people will vote for it out of sympathy. It has been marginalised under the Gandhi family.

Why should the country sympathise with Rahul Gandhi? What is his contribution to the uplift of the poor of this country? He has been convicted for defaming a community. In his statement that "all thieves have the Modi surname", what message did he intend to convey? Did it not occur to him that he was defaming a hardworking community, spread over the country and abroad?

People must decide if the country's politicians have freedom to say anything against anyone. Some people argue that defamation should not be a criminal offence. But it is worthwhile to ask: why should anyone level allegations against others which they cannot substantiate? This license to defame others has taken Indian politics to a new low. Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal made libelous insinuations against Prime Minister Narendra Modi in a television show. The news anchor tried to contest Kejriwal’s claims, but he was bullied to stay silent. Kejriwal questioned the educational qualifications of PM Modi. The same news channel reproduced the interview of PM Modi given several years ago from which Kejriwal had selectively quoted.

The Delhi Chief Minister repeated his insinuations against PM Modi in the Assembly. There are millions of youths who pursue distant learning. Kejriwal has defamed a vast number of youths for such learning which government has promoted for several decades. There are a number of universities, including the Indira Gandhi National Open University, for this purpose.

Also, it is well known that Kejriwal escaped conviction in defamation cases by apologising to the late Arun Jaitely and Union Minister Nitin Gadkari. Gandhi chose not to apologise in the Surat court. Defamatory political discourse, based on mudslinging, has no space in Indian democracy, which is known to be aspirational. Rahul Gandhi has also said that he’s “not Savarkar, but Gandhi and Gandhis don’t apologise.” But not long ago he had apologised to the Supreme Court for making baseless allegations on the Rafale issue.

Members of the legislature must commit themselves to the singular efforts to realise the dreams of the people. This naturally calls for a review of the discretionary powers of the Members of Parliament. It must be asked if it’s still relevant for an MP to recommend students for admission in Kendriya Vidyalaya and to exercise similar discretionary powers in extending other entitlements.

There must not be any doubt that the Gandhi family has a feudal mindset. Despite a strong campaign for inner democracy, the Congress coterie defeated the efforts for genuine intra-party democracy. This coterie keeps alive the feudal mindset of the party's ruling family.

Memories are still fresh of how Sitaram Keshri was thrown out of the party by the Gandhi family. People of the country have not forgotten that the mortal remains of late PV Narsimha Rao, former prime minister, were not allowed into the party office premises for his followers to pay their last respects to the departed soul. As a result of breaking the law and claiming victimhood, the Gandhis have demonstrated the least political decency in the world.

But the law is the same for all. Laws don’t discriminate between citizens.

The Opposition protesting against Rahul Gandhi's disqualification from the Lok Sabha membership after his conviction in a criminal defamation case is as good as a celebration of corruption, which the people in the national capital saw after the arrest of Manish Sisodia, the former deputy chief minister of Delhi, by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The New Excise Policy of the city government is being probed for financial irregularity and conspiracy.

Indian democracy rests on institutions. The judiciary is a crucial institution in the country. By questioning Rahul’s conviction, the Opposition party is undermining the judiciary.

Also, Parliament has passed laws. If the Opposition parties believe that some laws need changes, they can certainly change them in Parliament. But for that they need people’s mandates. Self-centered politics must stop immediately. Stringent rules should be framed with necessary amendments to the Representation of People’s Act. This will guide Indian democracy on the path free of compulsive lying and defamation.

(The author is a political analyst)