Supreme Court on Gandhis in National Herald case

Ningombam Bupenda Meitei *

The writer, subject to the final judgement to be decided, if decided, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India on National Herald case, hails the order of the Supreme Court on National Herald case, and opines here arguing for Gandhis, that Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi have been given an "ample opportunity (to argue) at the stage of framing of charges", as replied by Justice Khehar of the Supreme Court, besides setting aside all inferences and conclusions made by Delhi High Court judgment on National Herald case. The same writer argued for Gandhis in his article Questioning the National Herald Case Judgment in the post-pronouncement of Delhi High Court judgment on the case.

Though the Supreme Court has not quashed the trial proceedings against Gandhis but the same Court directed an expunction of all inferences and conclusions made by the Delhi High Court on the case besides giving exemption to Gandhis from personal appearance at the proceedings. Besides Gandhis, the other Congress leaders are also granted an exemption from personal appearance in the Magistrate court of Patiala House Court for future hearings by the Supreme Court of India bench of Justices J.S. Khehar and C. Nagappan. To the arguments for Gandhis in the Court by the senior counsels Kapil Sibal and Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Justice Khehar has said, "We will not like to say anything. Our limited call is to look into what the Delhi High Court judge has said. Now the judge had said something. We are not happy with what the judge said. There may be a trial and the remarks of the judge has now prejudiced the trial."

However, the Delhi High Court order did state that issues could be raised at the stage of framing charges before the trial court. The point of Justice Khehar's remark - 'the remarks of the judge has now prejudiced the trial' - is worthy to be noted.

The plea of Gandhis to quash summonses has been rejected by the Supreme Court bench as the bench ordered, "Insofar as the determination rendered by the HC in rejecting the prayer for quashing is concerned, there is no justification in interfering with it." This rejection of the plea would lead to an opportune time of exposing the lies of the complainant Dr. Subramanian Swamy in the next hearing of the trial court on 20th February, 2016. Rejecting the plea to stay the order of the Delhi High Court by the Supreme Court bench in this regard, there might be an understood reading of weakening the legal arguments in favour of Gandhis but the fact is that it rather strengthens arguments for Gandhis, by going for a trial court for a pre-charge evidence proceedings wherein arguments would be followed to even question the malicious propaganda of the ruling party, BJP, through the complainant. Therefore, the Congress has, in a way, got a grand opportunity to expose the spread of falsehood by the complainant who is also a member of BJP.

The very fact that the Supreme Court has expunged "all final inferences and conclusions drawn by the High Court, on the various factual aspects in the matter" from its order - "it was not open to the High Court to record firm conclusions and that it ought to have been left to the trial court to do so after recording evidence" – shows that Gandhis will be given a fair trial in the trial court with no prejudice. The point that the Supreme Court has expunged all final inferences and conclusions drawn by the (Delhi) High Court also shows that the questions of 'smacking of criminality' or 'cheating' or 'questionable conduct' are to be relooked afresh with no bias of even having an iota of doubt of cheating by Gandhis. In a way, the question of criminality or cheating is not legally appropriate to be charged on Gandhis, as of now, in this regard as even the evidences of cheating are not yet recorded by the trial court and the reason why such charge is not legally appropriate is already given in the order of the Supreme Court bench which says 'it ought to have been left to the trial court to do so after recording evidence' and therefore, nothing including whether 'cheating' or 'smacking of criminality' can be said even before recording evidences in the trial court. Hence, the trial court is yet to even decide: (i) whether there was a cheating or not, and if it was, then who cheated whom and how? and if not, the complainant stands exposed; and/or (ii) whether criminality is involved or not, and if so, then whether a financial transaction is criminal in nature or not, and if such financial transaction is criminal, then how has that led to any criminality?

The next hearing of the case which is to take place in Patiala House court on 20th February, 2016, will expose the false propaganda of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's hidden agenda of attacking Nehru Gandhi family by using the complainant, who is not a victim in this case but only a BJP member, who though has filed the complaint as a private individual.