advertisement
Senior Congress leader Ahmed Patel was cross-examined in the Gujarat High Court for four days, starting on 20 June, by the lawyer of BJP leader Balwantsinh Rajput who has challenged Patel's election to the Rajya Sabha in 2017.
Rajput has also sought that votes cast by Congress MLAs Shailesh Parmar and Mitesh Garasiya (in Patel's favour) be held invalid for a procedural breach, and the votes cast by Congress rebels Bholabhai Gohil and Raghavji Patel (which went to Rajput) be held as valid.
The court also heard and rejected two applications filed by Patel.
In 2017, Shah, Irani and Patel were elected to the Upper House of Parliament from Gujarat. Patel got 44 votes in the election, the minimum he needed to win, while Rajput polled 38.
Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, who appeared for Rajput in his personal capacity as lawyer, grilled Patel for two hours on Thursday, 20 June, before Justice Bela Trivedi.
Among other things, Jain asked Patel when he became the treasurer of the Congress and what was his role. The senior politician replied that his job as the treasurer was to manage party funds.
The lawyer further asked Patel who paid the hotel bills during his stay at the time of election. Patel said the state Congress footed the bill and he later paid back the money.
Patel took exception to Jain adding "you being a senior Congress leader" as a prelude to his questions, saying he had appeared in the court as "Ahmed Mohammed Patel" and not as a "senior Congress leader".
Referring to a meeting of Gujarat Congress MLAs ahead of the election, Jain asked him to elaborate on what he said at the meeting. Patel said he probably spoke for only one-two minutes and it was nothing more than thanking the party leaders and legislators.
When Jain asked whether he remembered anything other than that, Patel answered in the negative. He also said "no" when asked if he spoke to any of the MLAs individually.
Patel denied before the Gujarat High Court on Friday, 21 June, that he made his party issue a whip during the 2017 Rajya Sabha election to threaten the MLAs who might have voted against him.
Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, alleged that the whip issued by the Congress before the election was nothing short of a threat to party MLAs.
Referring to the 25 July 2017 meeting of Gujarat Congress MLAs, Jain asked Patel whether he knew that some legislators might vote against him. Patel said state party leaders did apprise him of the possibility after the meeting.
The Congress leader also said that the whip asking MLAs to vote for him was issued by Legislative Party leader Mohansinh Rathwa before he had reached the meeting's venue.
Patel replied "no idea" when Jain asked him if he was aware that an MLA cannot be disqualified for violation of a party whip during the Rajya Sabha election. The whip, as read out by Jain, stated that whoever violated it would be disqualified for six years under the anti-defection provisions of the Constitution.
Patel said "not true" when Jain accused him of stopping MLAs from "exercising their free will" and "issuing a threat" in the form of whip.
Jain alleged that Patel had reached the meeting in time and was involved in the process of issuance of the whip. Patel denied the allegation.
Ahmed Patel on Monday, 24 June, also told the Gujarat High Court that it was the state party unit's decision, and not his, to shift 44 of its MLAs to a Bengaluru resort ahead of the 2017 Rajya Sabha polls in Gujarat.
Satya Pal Jain posed several questions to Patel regarding Congress MLAs being moved to the resort on the night of 29 July 2017, to thwart a possible "poaching" attempt by the BJP ahead of the 8 August polls.
Denying his role, Patel claimed he was not aware of the MLAs being shifted and learnt about it the next day when he read the newspapers. He said it was the Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee's (GPCC) decision and not his.
Patel told the court that when he learnt about the shifting of the MLAs, he even told the then GPCC chief Bharatsinh Solanki that it was "not needed". The Congress leader said the GPCC took the decision fearing that the BJP may engage in "horse-trading".
After their arrival here on August 7, the Congress MLAs were taken to another resort in Anand where they stayed till morning next day, Jain told the court.
Patel also denied Jain's charge that he was behind these arrangements, adding that the expenses of keeping the MLAs in the resorts were borne by the GPCC.
On Tuesday, 25 June, Rajput's lawyer questioned Patel about a press conference he had held on 7 August 2017, a day before the election. When asked if he recalled the conference, the Congress leader said he did address it but could not say when it was held.
The Gujarat High Court on Wednesday, 26 June, rejected Ahmed Patel's plea seeking deletion of Union ministers Amit Shah and Smriti Irani's names as respondents in a petition, which challenged his election to the Rajya Sabha from Gujarat in 2017.
Justice Bela Trivedi rejected Patel's application, which argued that they are no longer Rajya Sabha members as they were elected to the Lok Sabha in the recently concluded general elections.
Then, on Thursday, the Justice Trivedi also rejected Patel's plea seeking forensic analysis of BJP leader Balwantsinh Rajput's signature on a copy of the election petition filed by him.
Rajput's lawyer Devang Vyas contended that there was no need for forensic examination of the signature as it was original and Patel was trying to delay the hearing of the petition, he alleged.
(With Inputs From PTI)
(At The Quint, we question everything. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member today.)