Spokespersons: Shri Jairam Ramesh and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi said that the issue before us is a vital political issue for this country, for all political parties, for leaders of all political parties. It is a political issue because it signifies the systematic, repetitive, emasculation of democratic institutions by the ruling party. It signifies the strangulation of democracy itself.

We all know that Shri Rahul Gandhi has been speaking out fearlessly inside and outside Parliament. He has spoken on social issues, on economic issues, on political issues without any fear or inhibition, frankly and candidly through you to India. Clearly, he is paying a price for it. Clearly, this government is rattled because he is consistently aggressive and open in his questioning and therefore, this government is finding new techniques of throttling his voice, of gagging him.

Shri Rahul Gandhi goes abroad. He is entitled to speak freely on grounds of fake nationalism, created imaginary nationalism, rhetorical nationalism, and non- existent issues. He comes back and his speeches abroad become the basis of action against him inside Parliament.

The ruling party resorts to disruption everyday saying, a precondition for someone to speak in Parliament or attend Parliament is that he must first apologise. The disruption by the ruling party is part of a pattern to stop him:

(A) because he speaks fearlessly and candidly;

(B) To divert attention from the real issues,

(C) To divert attention from the questions, which my friend here asks every day.

I told you yesterday, there is a provision created in laws specifically called ‘202’, which says, if allegedly I commit a defamatory offense in place ‘X’ in this case Kolar, Karnataka and if somebody chooses to sue me in Gujarat or Bihar as in this case Surat, then the magistrate before whom a complaint is filed, is mandatorily, I repeat, mandatorily, obliged to conduct a preliminary inquiry as to whether he has jurisdiction to start and initiate the proceedings, is to call for a report either, himself or through the police, or through agencies. Admittedly, no inquiry is conducted because there is a tearing hurry to go ahead in a place, which might well be without any jurisdiction at all, namely, Surat, Gujarat.

In March 2022, i.e. 3 years after the complaint is filed, the complainant rushes to the High Court and gets a stay of his own complaint. Now, the same complainant after a hiatus of 11 months, when he has no interest in his own complaint, suddenly wakes up and goes on 16th February this year, seeking a vacation of the same stay, which he himself obtained.

The High Court vacates the stay, the man rushes back to the trial court and we get this judgement. There are many more disturbing features about this case. Though the conviction is by a court in Shri Rahul Gandhi’s case, the disqualification under article 103 of the constitution has to be by the President of India and under 103, the President of India has to first, before disqualifying Shri Rahul Gandhi, take an opinion, a recommendation from the Election Commission, admittedly it is not done.

The Election Commission, no doubt had issued circular saying, in such cases of conviction, we don’t need to go to the Hon’ble President but my question is little different. If the constitutional article 103 says so, neither the practice of the Election Commission, nor indeed a recall of a submission of the Election Commission to the Supreme Court, nor indeed a recall by the Supreme Court can change the Constitution. The highest law of the land is the Constitution.

We are confident that we will get a stay of conviction, a stay of conviction will remove the very basis of this disqualification. Friday, March 24, 2023