She also charged that Gandhi believed that he was above law after his disqualification from the Lok Sabha as according to the judgment, he did not defend himself in the case. Responding to a lawyer’s question about the ramification of Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification on the dynamics of Indian politics and especially the upcoming 2024 elections, Irani hinted that it won’t make any significant impact.
How does somebody change something when somebody is absent, always?… You should know that it’s the directive of the court and why is it a directive of the court because the person concerned made a racial slur against the OBC community. Let that fact first be placed on record. Now many of you who are seated here today possibly do not know each other’s caste or religious background.
Source:- TOILet me draw your attention to somebody on stage who’s from the OBC community. So the racial slur Mr. Gandhi has hitched is not only on one individual but the entire community that includes the chancellor. So now, the case in a court of law is fought on merits and evidence. If you read the judgment, the judgment says that the person concerned did not defend himself which leads me to assume two things – that either somebody within his political organization just did not want to defend him knowing what the courts are capable of under the law. Or Rahul Gandhi thought he’s above the law and that no court in this country will hold him accountable, said Irani.
The union minister further said that once the court has ordered a particular conviction, it is incumbent upon the Speaker of the House to follow the constitutional practice.
Source: Times NowThe Speaker of the House of the Lok Sabha precisely is an entity that manifests the will of the Indian people through the constitution. This is not a speaker who wakes up one morning and says, let me write the law as I deem fit. This is a speaker who presides over the Lok Sabha on the basis of the Constitution, on the basis of Acts of Parliament and this is a speaker that also responds automatically to the judicial precedent set by law that is incumbent upon the speaker to follow, she said.
Referring to Gandhi’s recent remarks in London that he cannot speak in Indian Universities, she said, Gandhi had been to universities in India, interacted with students, but no government stopped him from interacting. This means that he was lying in England.
What do you think of this? Please Comment.
