Guj HC Rejects Pleas Filed by Ahmed Patel After Cross-Examination

Balwantsinh Rajput filed an election petition after he lost to Patel in Rajya Sabha election from Gujarat in 2017

File Photo: Senior Congress leader Ahmed Patel was grilled for four days in the Gujarat High Court and the two pleas he filed were rejected.

Photo Courtesy: PTI

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 filed the election petition after he lost to Patel in the Rajya Sabha election from Gujarat on 8 August, 2017, the end of a contest that had become a prestige battle for both the BJP and Congress. Among other things, his petition has accused Patel of bribing MLAs to get their votes.

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.

One of Patel’s applications claims that Rajput’s signature on the election petition was forged and should be examined by a forensic science laboratory. The other plea seeks removal of BJP leaders Amit Shah and Smriti Irani from the list of respondents in the case, in view of their election to the Lok Sabha.

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.

Patel Grilled on His Role as Treasurer of the Congress

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".

However, Justice Trivedi told Patel that he should have come prepared when he said “I do not remember” to many questions. “Inferences will be drawn” if he continued to answer in this way, the judge said.

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.

When Jain repeated the question, Patel said the then leader of opposition in the Assembly, Mohansinh Rathwa, told him after the meeting that the party had issued a whip to the MLAs for the poll. To this, Jain said, “Either you were lying earlier when you said you spoke nothing, or you are lying now.”

Patel Denies He Had Hand in Issuance of Whip

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.

The senior Congress leader also strongly denied the suggestion that though MLAs cannot be disqualified for violating such a whip, Patel made the party issue one. He also denied Jain’s charge that the whip was akin to a “threat”, and he might have lost had it not been issued.

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.

‘Not My Idea to Shift Guj Cong MLAs to Bengaluru’

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".

When Jain showed him some photographs and asked him whether he had gone to meet these MLAs at the airport upon their return, Patel said he did not remember. Justice Trivedi then asked Patel to “answer properly” and said it was “not believable” that he did not remember.

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.

“The BJP and Rajput used undue influence and pressure, and also indulged in bribing, which resulted in the resignation of six MLAs ahead of the polls and cross-voting by eight Congress MLAs,” 

Ahmed Patel, Senior Congress Leader

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.

HC Rejects Two Pleas Flied By Patel

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.

The court rejected his application, saying that Shah and Irani, who are now Union Home Minister and Union Textiles Minister respectively, were respondents from the beginning of the petition in view of the statutory requirement, and merely by vacating their offices, they do not cease to be the necessary parties.

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.

Justice Bela Trivedi dismissed Patel’s application seeking a forensic analysis to check if Rajput’s signature on the copy of the petition served to respondents was original or a photocopy.

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)