Supreme Court stays conviction of Congress leader Hardik Patel in riots case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday stayed the conviction of Gujarat Congress President Hardik Patel in Mehsana rioting case of 2015 [Hardik Bharatbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat]..A Bench of Justices S Abdul Nazeer and Vikram Nath also said that it was a fit case for the Gujarat High Court to have stayed Patel's conviction.The top court, therefore, proceeded to grant relief to Patel."Having heard Senior Counsel Maninder Singh and having regard to the facts and circumstances, we are of the view that this is the fit case for high court to have stayed the conviction. The conviction is, hereby, stayed until the appeals are decided accordingly," the Court directed..Patel had spearheaded Patidar agitation in 2015 demanding reservation for Patidar community. The agitation had led to violence leaving a BJP MLA's office vandalised.Patel was convicted by the trial court for his role in riots for offences of arson rioting, damage to property and unlawful assembly. He had approached the Gujarat High Court prior to the 2019 General elections for a stay. The High Court had, however, rejected the plea due to which he was unable to contest in the polls.He then approached the top court."Not allowing me contest election is a violation of my right to freedom of expression. It is a violation. I have already lost one chance to contest election in 2019," Senior Counsel Maninder Singh said on behalf of Patel.He maintained that the State is misusing Police powers."We are before your lordships to get our rights under Article 19(1)(a) to be enforced. I am not a serious killer. They have misused the police power. Therefore, I don't know what they have to say, but my lords must decide this case soon," Singh submitted..Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta, representing the State of Gujarat said that Patel contesting election is not the issue before the Court. Instead the matter should be decided based on parameters in criminal law."In criminal law, there is no one standard guidelines to say which one is right. Your lordship may decide the issue. Whether Patel might have won or not, is not the issue in this case," he contended.the SG also pointed out that there is one case under Section 395 IPC (dacioty) "There is one case under section 395 IPC, which is really serious," he said..The Court after hearing both sides proceeded to grant interim relief.