Hardik Patel New Delhi/UNI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the conviction of Gujarat Congress working president and Patidar leader Hardik Patel in the Mehsana rioting case of 2015.
A two-judge bench headed by Justice S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath, heard a detailed argument from the petitioner, Hardik Patel and state of Gujarat and other parties.
Senior lawyer Maninder Singh, appearing for Hardik, submitted to the court that Hardik not being allowed to contest the Gujarat elections would be a violation of fundamental right.
"Not allowing me to contest elections is a violation of my right to freedom of expression. It is a violation. I have already lost one chance to contest election in 2019," Singh told the court.
"The State is misusing Police powers," he further said. "We are of the view that this is the fit case for the High Court to have stayed the conviction.
The conviction is, hereby, stayed until the appeals are decided accordingly," the court said in its order today.
Patel took part in the Patidar movement in 2015 demanding reservation for the community.
The agitation had led to violence leaving a BJP (Bharatiya Janata Party) MLA's office vandalised. Patel was convicted by the trial court for his role in riots for offences of arson, rioting, damage to property and unlawful assembly.
He had approached the Gujarat High Court prior to the 2019 General elections for a stay.
The high court had, however, rejected the plea due to which he was unable to contest in the polls.
He then approached the top court seeking relief which was granted by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
"We are before your lordships to get our rights under Article 19(1)(a) to be enforced. I am not a killer. They have misused the police power. Therefore, I don't know what they have to say, but my lords must decide this case soon," Singh submitted.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Gujarat, said that Patel contesting election is not the issue before the court. Instead the matter should be decided based on parameters in criminal law.
"Whether Patel might have won or not, is not the issue in this case," Mehta told the Supreme Court.
The SG also pointed out that there is one case under Section 395 (Dacoity) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
"There is one case under section 395 IPC, which is really serious," Mehta said.
Support Our Journalism
We cannot do without you.. your contribution supports unbiased journalism
IBNS is not driven by any ism- not wokeism, not racism, not skewed secularism, not hyper right-wing or left liberal ideals, nor by any hardline religious beliefs or hyper nationalism. We want to serve you good old objective news, as they are. We do not judge or preach. We let people decide for themselves. We only try to present factual and well-sourced news.
