Jethmalani: Contents of speech are established...
Gavai J: To be considered when merits are decided...
Jethmalani: Pls see. My individual name...I looked at Gujarati translation of...All people with surname Modi including complainant have been defamed by accused, but not you, Purnesh Modi.
Jethmalani: ...Impugned portion in CD 2...That's marked. Please note. That's the authentic version. In fact, man who recorded under instruction of Election Commission to ensure Model Code of Conduct is complied with...He is prosecution witness. Speech part is completely unimpeachable. Photographer, man who held camera, is also witness. Entitled to highest presumption of truth, contents included.
Mahesh Jethmalani: There is plethora of evidence. Ganesh Yajee, who made an application...He was present at the meeting. This is not denied. He was then shown Election Commission tape, he said this is what he saw.
Gavai J: He also said during cross-examination that there were several sentences missing.
Jethmalani: Entire speech spanned over 50 minutes...
Singhvi: Only one person, Ganesh...He is invented after several months. He is a BJP karyakarta.
Gavai J: Not karyakarta, but an important functionary.
Singhvi: Yes, he comes 21 months later, and becomes an interested person.
Gavai J: Alright.
Singhvi: I am not arguing on merits, but there is no evidence at all, on the event. Note how. Complaint starts because complainant got a WhatsApp with a newspaper cutting. Doesn't say how he got it or who sent it...In all of that, actual event not proved as per Evidence Act.
Gavai J: HC says that issue cannot be considered at this stage.
Singhvi: In the meantime, complainant goes to HC & gets stay on trial...To get more evidence...Then he got it vacated & one month later, conviction is given.
Singhvi: Election for Kerala seat has not been notified yet. Perhaps they know that chances of victory are less.
Gavai J: Don't make it political. You and Mr Jethmalani save it for Rajya Sabha.
Singhvi withdraws his remark.
Singhvi: The offence against me doesn't exist...This is a serious matter because the person suffers disqualification. He reserved order for 66 days after I finished argument. I finished in May, judgment given in July. (reads S 171)
Singhvi: Out of 13 crore people in this 'group', all aggrieved people are BJP legislators or karyakartas...Also, there is silence as to why or how moral turpitude...which judgment. Nothing. It's just a conclusion.
Singhvi: This man will be silenced for 8 years because of this? In democracy, we have dissent. In Hindi, we call this shaleen language. I understand that. I don't think this man intended...
Gavai J: Trial judge also talks about criminal antecedents...
Singhvi: Criminal antecedents, I was going to argue. I am not a hardened criminal...No conviction despite...look at the chart. Full of cases filed by BJP karyakartas, but never any conviction.
Singhvi: Learned judge treats this as a serious offence involving a moral turpitude. Not a single material of moral turpitude. Not a single judgement. This is non-cognisable, bailable, AND COMPOUNDABLE! Not against society, not kidnapping, rape, murder...maximum sentence of 2 yrs...How can this become an offence involving moral turpitude?