SC declines urgent hearing of Hardik Patel’s plea to suspend conviction in rioting case

The Congress leader moved the apex court seeking an ex-parte stay of his conviction in the 2015 Vispur rioting case

Hardik Patel. File

The Supreme Court on Tuesday denied urgent hearing of a plea by Congress leader Hardik Patel to suspend his conviction in a 2015 rioting case.

A Bench led by Chief Justice of India Ranjan Gogoi on Tuesday denied him an out-of-turn hearing, raising questions on whether he would be able to contest the Lok Sabha election from the Jamnagar constituency in Gujarat.

The last date for filing of nomination is April 4. Mr. Patel's petition may now come up for hearing in the normal course, probably late this week or early next week.

Also Read

FIRs against me is meant to ‘suppress the voice of the masses’, Hardik Patel tells SC

 

Mr. Patel had moved the Supreme Court seeking an ex-parte stay of his conviction in the 2015 Vispur rioting case, saying the FIRs lodged against him by the ruling BJP in Gujarat were an effort to “suppress the voice of the masses”.

n March 29, to suspend his conviction in the case. On July 25, 2018, the Sessions Court at Visnagar in Mehsana district sentenced Mr. Patel to two years’ imprisonment. He was found guilty of rioting and arson during the Patidar quota stir. He had led the agitations.

Under the election law, a candidate facing two years’ prison sentence or more is disqualified from contesting elections unless the conviction is stayed. In August 2018, the High Court suspended the sentence, but not the conviction.

Mr. Patel, aged 25, joined the Congress on March 12. Polling in 26 Lok Sabha seats in Gujarat will be held on April 23.

“The petitioner [Patel] is the leader of the Patidar Andolan and started his agitation in 2015. The ruling party of the State got registered a number of FIRs against him under various provisions of the law,” the petition for Mr. Patel, who is represented by senior advocate A.M. Singhvi and advocate Prashanto Sen, said.

The petition said the filing of cases against him was “ mala fide ” and done with a “view to suppressing the voice of the masses”.

He claimed the High Court “ignored the facts and declined to interfere in the name of the pending FIRs”. Mr. Patel argued that past FIRs cannot be made a “guideline” for not denying him relief in the form of suspension of his conviction. He asked whether such FIRs be the basis for disqualification of a person under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act of 1951.

“While considering the prayer for suspension of conviction, the appellate court is to examine the consequence that may arise and irreparable loss that may be done to a person if the conviction is not stayed,” he argued.

“In the present case, he [Mr. Patel] may lose his right to contest the coming Lok Sabha election,” the petition said.

He claimed his conviction by the trial court was based on hearsay evidence.