On July 19th, 2019, the Supreme Court of India upheld a defamation conviction against Rahul Gandhi, the former President of the Indian National Congress. The case was brought forward by a member of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) over comments made by Gandhi during a political rally in 2014. This verdict raises questions about the impact of such convictions on parliamentary privilege, a cornerstone of Indian democracy.
Rahul Gandhi’s Defamation Conviction 2014
Rahul Gandhi was found guilty of defamation against Amit Shah, the President of BJP, during a speech made in Thane, Maharashtra in 2014. Gandhi had accused Shah of murder and had linked him to a number of extrajudicial killings. The verdict has been viewed as a blow to the Congress Party, which has seen a decline in popularity in recent years. Gandhi, who had resigned from his post as party president in 2019, has been vocal in his criticism of the ruling BJP and Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
Impact on Parliamentary Privilege
Parliamentary privilege is a set of rights and privileges enjoyed by members of the Indian Parliament, which includes freedom of speech within the House. This privilege extends to speech made outside of the parliament, provided it is relevant to the proceedings of the House. The Supreme Court’s verdict against Rahul Gandhi raises questions about the scope of this privilege, particularly when it comes to political speeches made in public. The verdict could be seen as a step towards curtailing free speech and dissent, which are essential to parliamentary democracy.
The conviction of Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case highlights the challenges faced by political leaders in India, where defamation suits are commonly used to silence critics. The verdict also raises questions about the limits of parliamentary privilege, which is crucial to the functioning of democracy. As India heads toward its next general elections, it is important to ensure that free speech and dissent are protected and that elected representatives are able to carry out their duties without fear of legal action.
Two-year sentence and disqualification from the Parliament 2023
On 23 March 2023, Rahul Gandhi was disqualified from his parliamentary seat and later asked to vacate his residence. While these actions were expected, what does it mean to the people of India? Two aspects need consideration, the triviality of the charges that do not justify the full extent of the sentence and the possibility of action against any other member of the parliament. It is important to highlight that there have been several cases of disqualification in the past, but the sentence of 2 years will set a precedence.
In short, this is a clear case of political vendetta shrouded in legal justification. Morality is out of the door! While there is a discussion on the impact of the disqualification there is no great response from the people of India.
Democracy in India
The greatest factor that guides the people of India is in accepting the situation, rather than changing it, as long as it does not affect their community, religion, or way of life. Thus whoever ruled India had to adapt to the needs of the society keeping in mind the high level of acceptance. Quite unlike the people of Israel or France that had a revolution. The idea of good and evil exists in an intrinsic philosophy. Monarchs and monarchies, religious and spiritual heads, were all accepted and revered even to this day. Elected members are viewed in similar ways, keeping alive a modern-day aristocracy.
Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification is clearly a political vendetta and a cause for raising the issue with protests. India has its own democratic values and is as unique as any in the world.
