haul up all rahul supporters for court 's contempt!

The conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi by the Chief Judicial Magistrate 's court in Surat in a defamation case has obviously nothing to do with politics. The law of the land only recognises the offence and not the offender! The bigwigs of the legal fraternity advising Rahul Gandhi are certainly aware of this simple and undisputed legal maxim. It is not known whether Rahul Gandhi was educated about this maxim but one thing is certain that all his supporters within his party as well as other supporting parties are either blissfully ignorant about this simple legal proposition of law or atleast they pretend to be ignorant.

Here comes another legal maxim. It is,the ignorance of law is no excuse! In simple language one cannot commit a wrong or violate the law of the land and when caught by the long hands of law, cannot take a plea that he was not aware about the provisions of law. The courts would not only reject such defence but also make the offender learn the law in a hard way, that is, by undergoing the punishment!

Now let us apply these yardsticks to the situation prevailing in the aftermath of Rahul Gandhi's conviction in a criminal case and subsequent removal from the parliament as a member. The ruling party or the government has had absolutely no role to play either in the court prosecution or in stripping Rahul Gandhi of his membership. If at all any one is to bear the brunt, it is Rahul Gandhi himself. Obviously, there cannot be a licence for any person to abuse, defame and derogate somebody and going scotfree from the clutches of law.

Unfortunately, today the moral and ethical level of our politicians has dipped so low that a common man feels ashamed of having such worthless pigmies as the leaders of the largest democracy! No party is an exception to this pitiable reality. Apart from having the foul-mouthed politicians we have also the other creeds of criminals such as, murderers, rapists, kidnappers, corrupts and what not!

The power and money hungry elements under the garb of politicians who are universally found in more or less number in almost all parties, not only eat away the very fabric of our democracy but also bring a bad name to our country on a global platform. What Rahul Gandhi said in his controversial utterances during his recent visit of Britain, over which much heat is generated in the parliament, is not totally false. The only problem here is that Rahul Gandhi and his party and other alliance parties have to take a lion share of blame even if his half-baked allegations are to be taken at face value. Indeed, if the Indian National Congress can stake its claim to whatever the good old leaders during Independence struggle did, it also carry the burden of the garbage of the acts of omissions and commissions subsequent to India 's freedom.

In its attempt to get sympathy of the gullible voters, the Congress and other opportunistic parties are nowadays busy in spreading falsehood and fomenting political frenzy. This bandwagon is making the convict, a hero! Not stopping at that the bandwagon has also not spared the judiciary. By saying that the transfer of trial court judges were stage-managed, they cast aspersions on the working of the courts, their independence, integrity and impartiality.

This is not acceptable. If Rahul Gandhi' s supporters want to paint him as a freedom fighter, let them do so; but painting a foul-mouthed offender as a hero, the countrymen will never tolerate. The judiciary has taken a bold step by showing Rahul Gandhi his ' aukhat' , now it has to be ready for the acid test! Unless, the judiciary rises to the occasion and curbs anti democracy activities in time, the days of anarchy are not far away. Therefore, irrespective of numbers, let the agitators who belittle the judiciary be hauled up and put on criminal trial for the contempt of court.

DISQUALIFICATION LAW CHALLENGED

A PhD scholar and activist from Kerala, Aabha Muralidharan has knocked the doors of the Supreme Court with a PIL challenging Section 8 (3) of the Representation of the People Act. The plea coincides with the disqualification of Congress leader and MP, Rahul Gandhi by the Lok Sabha. Section 8 (3) provides for the automatic disqualification of an M.P or M.L.A/ M.L.C upon a court convicting him for a jail term of two years or more and such disqualification will continue for another six years after completion of the sentence.

Prior to Lily Thomas Vs.Union of India judgement of 2013 Section 8 (4) enabled a convicted people's representative to file an appeal against conviction and for doing so a period of three months was provided. However, this section was struck down in Lily Thomas case. The petitioner has averred that the present position should be applicable only to the grave and heinous cases.

GAUHATI HC ORDERS COMPENSATION FOR MEDICAL ERROR

The Gauhati High Court recently ordered the State government to pay a sum of Rs 5 lakh to the widow of a prisoner who died due to the error in diagnosing the medical condition in a timely and effectively manner causing his death. A division bench comprising Justice Achintya Malla Bujor Barua and Justice Robin Phukan in a case titled,Shahar Banu Vs. State of Assam and 9 others while relying on the judgement in Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa and others held that the fundamental right of life guaranteed by the Constitution of India is also available to a prisoner and convict.

P&HHC ON SECTION 73 OF EVIDENCE ACT

Justice Harkesh Manuja of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in a case titled, Vijay Kumar Aggarwal Vs. has held that though Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 empowers the court to compare the disputed signature with the admitted one, it is necessary that such comparison should record an analysis of characteristics of the admitted signatures as compared to those of the disputed one.

DOCTOR CONVICTED FOR INDECENT BEHAVIOUR

A Metropolitan Magistrate in Mumbai convicted a plastic surgeon and awarded six months imprisonment for his indecent proposal to a woman patient and seeking personal favour from her. The woman who had fractured her nose while traveling in an auto rickshaw in 2017 in Gujarat had undergone a surgery but later, she had a swelling and felt suffocation. She was advised by another doctor to see a plastic surgeon. The accused took a plea, inter alia, that the woman wanted free treatment from him and when he refused, she foisted the present false case. However, the court was not convinced about the accused defence. The court observed: " As a doctor, one is in a position of trust and power, and has a duty to act in the patient's best interest."