The learned Trial Judge, in the order passed by him, has awarded the maximum sentence of imprisonment for two years. Except the admonition given to the appellant by this Court in contempt proceedings 2 [Contempt Petition (Crl) No.3/2019 in Yashwant Sinha and Others v. Central Bureau of Investigation through its Director and another, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338] no other reason has been assigned by the learned Trial Judge while imposing the maximum sentence of two years. It is to be noted that it is only on account of the maximum sentence of two years imposed by the learned Trial Judge, the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 (for short, “the Act”) have come into play. Had the sentence been even a day lesser, the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Act would not have been attracted. (Para 5)
Particularly, when an offence is non-cognizable, bailable and compoundable, the least that the Trial Judge was expected to do was to give some reasons as to why, in the facts and circumstances, he found it necessary to impose the maximum sentence of two years. (Para 6)
No doubt that the alleged utterances by the appellant are not in good taste. A person in public life is expected to exercise a degree of restraint while making public speeches. However, as has been observed by this Court while accepting affidavit of the appellant herein in aforementioned contempt proceedings, the appellant herein ought to have been more careful while making the public speech. (Para 8)
We are of the considered view that the ramification of subsection (3) of Section 8 of the Act are wide-ranging. They not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who have elected him, to represent their constituency. (Para 9)
We are of the considered view, taking into consideration the 3 aforesaid aspects and particularly that no reasons have been given by the learned Trial Judge for imposing the maximum sentence which has the effect of incurring disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Act, the order of conviction needs to be stayed, pending hearing of the present appeal. (Para 10)
SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT
Citation: 2023 STPL(Web) 136 SC
Rahul Gandhi Vs. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & anr.
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 8644/2023 – Decided on 4-8-2023
https://stpllaw.in/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/2023-STPLWeb-136-SC.pdf
