A sessions court in Surat on April 13 said it would pronounce on April 20 its order on Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s plea for a stay to his conviction in a criminal defamation case over his “Modi surname” remark.
After hearing arguments from both sides, additional sessions judge R. P. Mogera said he will pronounce the order on April 20. Gandhi’s lawyer argued that the trial in a defamation case over the Congress leader’s “Modi surname” remark was “not fair” and there was no need for maximum punishment in the case.
The lawyer made the argument during a hearing currently underway on Gandhi’s plea for a stay on his conviction in the defamation case.
A metropolitan magistrate’s court in Surat on March 23 sentenced Rahul Gandhi to two years in jail after holding him guilty for his remark “How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname”, made during an election rally on April 13, 2019.
BJP MLA and complainant in the case, Purnesh Modi, in his reply filed earlier in the same court, had opposed Gandhi’s plea for a stay on conviction saying the Congress leader is a “repetitive offender” who is in the habit of making defamatory statements.
On April 13, arguments from both sides commenced in the court of Additional Sessions Judge R. P. Mogera. Arguing for Gandhi, senior advocate R. S. Cheema told the judge that the trial was not “fair”.
The judgement by the magistrate was “strange” because the trial court judge “made a hotchpotch of all the evidence on record”, Cheema said.
“It was not a fair trial. The entire case was based on electronic evidence, wherein I made a speech during elections and a person sitting 100 km away filed a complaint after watching that in the news...There was no need for maximum punishment in this case,” argued Cheema on behalf of Gandhi.
He also said that Gandhi’s unconditional apology to the Supreme Court (in Rafale contempt case) was wrongly attached with this case by the complainant. Arguing against Gandhi’s plea for a stay on conviction, Purnesh Modi’s lawyer Harshit Toliya said his client felt offended because Gandhi had tried to defame all people with Modi surname through his remarks.
“He (Mr. Gandhi) was the president of the second largest party at the time of making the speech. His speech made a huge impact on the people of India and he also tried to sensationalise his speech,” said Toliya.
“In his speech, Rahul Gandhi spoke about Prime Minister Narendra Modi. But he didn’t stop there and went beyond it. He then said “Saare choron ke naam Modi hi kyu hai? Dhoondho aur bhi Modi milenge (Why are all thieves have Modi surname? If you search, you will find more such Modis). My client was hurt by this part of the speech and thus the complaint,” Toliya added.
He informed the court that Gandhi had refused to apologise for his remarks. Toliya said Gandhi is facing similar defamation cases in the country and he is making such defamatory statements despite tendering an unconditional apology in the Supreme Court in the past (in the Rafale case).
Gandhi, who was the MP from Wayanad in Kerala before his conviction led to disqualification, made the ‘Modi surname’ remark while addressing a rally at Kolar in Karnataka on April 13, 2019, during the Lok Sabha elections campaign.
Responding to Cheema’s argument about the jurisdiction (as Gandhi had made the speech in Karnataka), Toliya said although no objection was raised earlier during the trial before the magistrate, the issue was being raised now.
ED initiates probe into BBC India’s alleged foreign exchange violations
The Enforcement Directorate has initiated an inquiry into the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) India under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) for suspected violations.
It is learnt that the agency has also asked some BBC India functionaries to submit the documents which it has to scrutinise as part of the proceedings. On Thursday, one functionary appeared before the investigators.
The move came about two months after the Income-Tax Department had surveyed the Delhi and Mumbai office of the BBC in February, which allegedly revealed multiple irregularities, including non-payment of tax on certain remittances that were not disclosed to the authorities as income in India.
The surveys were carried out weeks after the BBC had released a two-part documentary, ‘India: the Modi Question’, related to the 2002 riots and situation of the minorities in India. The Income-Tax Department had then said that the income/profits shown by various group entities was not commensurate with the scale of operations in India.
“During the course of the survey, the Department gathered several evidence pertaining to the operation of the organisation which indicate that tax has not been paid on certain remittances which have not been disclosed as income in India by the foreign entities of the group,” said the agency had said.
As alleged by the Department, services of seconded employees (staff internally transferred on a temporary basis) had been used, for which reimbursement was made by the Indian entity to the foreign entity concerned. “Such remittance was also liable to be subject to ‘withholding tax’ [the amount employer deducts from the employee’s salary and pays to the government as the individual’s tax liability], which has not been done...the survey has also thrown up several discrepancies and inconsistencies with regard to Transfer Pricing documentation,” it had said.
U.P. STF kills gangster Atiq Ahmed’s son, another accused in encounter
Gangster-turned-politician Atiq Ahmed’s son Asad, and another accused Ghulam were killed in an encounter by the Uttar Pradesh Special Task Force (STF) in Jhansi on April 13, 2023, according to officials.
Asad Ghulam were both wanted in the Umesh Pal murder case. “Asad and Ghulam were wanted in the Umesh Pal murder case of Prayagraj and were carrying a reward of ₹5 lakh each. They were killed in an encounter with the U.P. STF team,” Special Additional Director General (Law and Order) Prasahant Kumar said.
“The U.P. STF team was led by Deputy SP Navendu and Vimal. Sophisticated foreign-made weapons were recovered from the accused. Further details are awaited,” the officer added.
Umesh Pal, a key witness in the 2005 murder case of then BSP MLA Raju Pal, and his two police security guards were shot dead outside his home in Prayagraj’s Dhoomanganj area on February 24 this year. Based on a complaint lodged by Umesh Pal’s wife Jaya Pal, a case was registered on February 25 against Atiq Ahmad, his brother Ashraf, Asad, Ghulam and others.
The FIR was lodged under sections 147 (rioting), 148 (rioting armed with deadly weapons), 149 (unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object), 302 (murder), 307 (attempt to murder) and 506 (criminal intimidation) of the IPC. Atiq Ahmad is also an accused in the 2005 Raju Pal murder case.
Reacting to reports of the encounter of Asad and Ghulam, Umesh Pal’s mother and wife, said, “Justice served”. Atiq Ahmed and his brother were produced before a court on April 13, in connection with the Umesh Pal murder case. They were presented in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Dinesh Gautam around 11:10 a.m. amid security deployment.
In a related development, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) carried out searches at more than a dozen locations in the State as part of its ongoing money laundering case against the former MP. Multiple teams of the ED, searched premises of close aides of Ahmed, including his lawyer Soulat Hanif.
Attack on Christians: ‘Exaggerated and wrong impression’, says Centre to Supreme Court
The Centre on April 13, 2023 said petitions filed in the Supreme Court alleging increasing incidents of attacks on Christians are devised to keep the “pot boiling” and give an “exaggerated” and wrong impression.
Appearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, for the Centre, said statistics given by the petitioners to prove their case of attacks on the religious community was wrong.
“Petitioners claim there were nearly 500 incidents of attacks on Christians. We sent everything to the States… Let us take the case of Bihar. The attacks the petitioners speak of are internal fights between neighbours of which one of them would be a Christian. They have later resolved. The figures given are incorrect,” Mehta submitted.
The petitions had alleged that attacks against Christians saw an “exponential rise” post 2022. They had listed alleged incidents of violence against Christians in the States of Bihar, Haryana, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh.
In a 217-page affidavit, the Centre said a majority of the incidents alleged, 263 out of 495, in the list given by the petitioners were not even reported to the State authorities. Out of 232 reported incidents, 73 were “resolved amicably with mutual agreement between both the parties”.
“These 73 incidents were related to land dispute, family dispute, superstitious practices, violation of COVID-19 guidelines and other trivial issues,” the affidavit said.
FIR/Non-FIR complaints were registered in the remaining 155 cases, the Centre informed the court.
The Centre, in a preliminary affidavit filed earlier in court, had said “a majority of the incidents alleged as Christian persecution in these reports were either false or wrongfully projected. In some cases, incidents of purely criminal nature and arising out of personal issues, have been categorised as violence targeting Christians”. Mehta said the petitions had sent out a wrong message that Christians were in danger.
Senior advocate Colin Gonsalves, for petitioners Rev. Dr. Peter Machado of National Solidarity Forum, Rev. Vijayesh Lal of Evangelical Fellowship of India and others, said he needed time to respond to the affidavit. The court adjourned the case by three weeks.
“Christians are attacked and FIRs are filed against Christians,” Gonsalves had submitted in a previous hearing. He had said “priests are arrested. FIRs are filed against Christians and they are struggling to get bail”.
Gonsalves had submitted there was an explosion of community hate in certain sections of the media and rallies. Gonsalves said the apex court had ordered the appointment of nodal police officers to keep a watch on hate and even prevent it from manifesting by filing FIRs against the perpetrators. “Not a single FIR has been filed,” he had said.
HC: A single working woman cannot be held ineligible to adopt a child
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court recently quashed a District Judge’s order of rejecting a single working woman’s plea for adopting a child only on the basis of, “being a working lady, as she will not give personal attention to the child”. The high court held, “The reason recorded by the judge is unfounded, illegal, perverse, unjust, and unacceptable.”
A Single Bench of Justice Gauri Godse was hearing a revision application by Shabnamjahan Ansari, challenging an order passed by the District Judge at Bhusawal on March 8, 2022, rejecting her application for adopting her sister’s child.
Ansari, a prospective adoptive parent, had registered in the child adoption centre and after following the necessary procedure, a detailed report was prepared by the District Child Protection Unit. All the necessary verification regarding the status and health of the prospective parent and the child as well as the financial condition of the parties, was done.
However, the Bhusawal District Judge had rejected the application on the ground that the prospective parent was a single lady and a divorcee. The Judge also observed that Ansari being a working lady, would not be able to give personal attention to her ward; per contra the biological parents would be in a better condition to take care of the child.
The court remarked, “The reason given by the Competent Court is not only contrary to the provisions of the Juvenile Justice (Care And Protection of Children) Act, but also to the recommendation made by Central Adoption Resource Authority (CARA). The reason given by the court is unfounded and baseless. The court has erroneously rejected the application by doing guesswork. The comparison done by the court between the biological mother being a housewife and the prospective adoptive mother (single parent) being a working lady reflects a mindset of the medieval conservative concepts of a family.”
The order read, “When JJ Act recognises a single parent to be eligible for being an adoptive parent, the approach of the court defeats the very object of the Statute. Generally, a single parent is bound to be a working person, maybe with some rare exceptions. Thus, by no stretch of the imagination, a single parent can be held to be ineligible to be an adoptive parent on the ground that he/she is a working person”, and quashed the lower court’s order.
Norway expels 15 Russian diplomats suspected of spying
Norway’s government said on Thursday that it was expelling 15 Russian diplomats from the country, saying they were suspected of spying while working at the Russian Embassy in Oslo.
Foreign Minister Anniken Huitfeldt said the move was “an important measure to counter and reduce the scope of Russian intelligence activities in Norway, and thereby secure our national interests.”
The Russians declared persona non grata “must leave Norway within a short time,” Huitfeldt said, adding, “We will not grant visas to intelligence officers who apply for a visa to Norway.”
Norway’s government said the activities of the expelled diplomats were “incompatible with their diplomatic status.” The Foreign Minister stressed that Oslo wants “normal diplomatic relations with Russia, and that Russian diplomats are welcome in Norway.”
The Russian Foreign Ministry said Moscow would respond in kind to Norway’s action, Russia’s Tass and RIA Novosti news agencies reported. A year ago, Norway expelled three Russian diplomats it identified as intelligence officers.
A man whom the Norwegian Police Security Service alleged used a false name and identity while actually working for one of Russia’s intelligence services also was arrested last year.
In Brief:
The Supreme Court on Wednesday gave two weeks to Maharashtra government to apprise the court about its stance on directly handing over the Palghar lynching case to the CBI. Appearing before a Bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, the counsel for the State government said he was still awaiting instructions from the Maharashtra government on transfer of the case. The State government had earlier told the court that it was ready to have the CBI investigate the case. However, the court had asked the State why it could not then directly approach the Central agency. “What stops the State government from handing over the case to the CBI?” advocate Balaji Srinivasan, for the petitioners, asked the court. “We have already written to the State government. We are waiting for instructions,” the State counsel told the Bench, seeking two weeks’ time.
Evening Wrap will return tomorrow.
