New Delhi: With just two days left for filing of nominations to the Lok Sabha polls, the Supreme Court Tuesday refused to grant urgent hearing to Congress leader Hardik Patel’s plea challenging the Gujarat high court order rejecting stay on his conviction in the 2015 Vispur rioting case.
When the matter was mentioned for urgent listing before a bench of Justices Arun Mishra, M.M. Shantanagoudar and Navin Sinha, Justice Mishra told the counsel appearing for Patel that there was no urgency in hearing the matter as the Gujarat high court order was passed in August last year.
“The order was passed in August 2018. What is the urgency now?” the bench said while refusing to agree with the submissions for early listing of the appeal against the high court verdict.
In view of the court’s refusal to hear before April 4, the chances of Patel contesting the polls has become bleak.
Patidar leader Harik Patel, who joined the Congress party, was preparing to contest from Jamnagar constituency and the last date for filing of nominations is April 4.
He sought suspension of his conviction in a case relating to rioting so that he can contest the upcoming elections. Patel has approached the Supreme Court after the Gujarat high court rejected his plea in the matter.
Patel was convicted in a case of rioting and arson by a lower Court in Mehasana and was sentenced to two years impr-isonment.
The case dates back to the Patidar prote-sts in 2015 for reservation.
He approached the Gu-jarat high court seeking suspension of his conviction so that he can contest elections. This plea was, however, rejected by the high court. —PTI
Patel has challenged the high court’s decision on the ground th-at an Appellate Court oug-ht to consider the consequences if the conviction is not suspended. —PTI
In this case, rejection of his plea would cause him an “irreparable loss.” He submitted that in a case for suspension of conviction, the Court is required to look into the broad features and the evidence available on record.
Hardik Patel said that his conviction was based on hearsay evidence but the High Court rejected the plea. Stating that the “balance of convenience is in his favour, Patel has sought an interim stay on conviction order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mehasana.
