Day two of cross-examination of senior Congress leader Ahmed Patel Friday, revolved around he events of July 25, 2017 — when Patel arrived in Ahmedabad — ahead of the 2017 Rajya Sabha polls. Patel was deposing in a hearing on an election petition filed by BJP leader Balwantsinh Rajput, challenging the Congress leader’s victory in the 2017 Rajya Sabha polls. During cross-examination by Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain, who is representing Rajput in his personal capacity as a lawyer, Patel was shown 12 photos from a purported Gujarat Pradesh Congress Committee meeting of July 25 evening. While Patel identified the Congress leaders in some of these photos but could not in some others, his constant stance was: “I’m not sure if this is the July 25 meeting or some other meeting as I’ve addressed multiple such meetings at the GPCC hall.” Notably, in all the photos where he was able to identify that the members present were Congress MLAs, an outlier Patel identified was Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) MLA Jayant Patel alias ‘Boskey’. When asked if and how Patel knew Boskey, Patel replied, “Of course (I know him), Boskey is a very well-known name in Gujarat politics.” Asked why an NCP MLA was present at a GPCC meeting, Patel explained that Congress and NCP were allies and it was common for NCP MLAs/members to attend GPCC meetings. Boskey, one of two NCP MLAs in the Gujarat assembly, voted for Patel in 2017. The other non-Congress MLA who voted for him was Chhotu Vasava, who was then with the Janata Dal (United). Patel on Thursday deposed that then leader of the legislative party Mohan Rathwa had informed him after the GPCC meeting that the party had issued a whip. On Friday, Patel said he remained unaware of the content of the whip until today, when he saw the related documents in court. However, Jain said Patel had received a copy of the document as an annexure when he received a copy of the petition. Patel asserted that he had only read the election petition and not the annexures. Patel also told the court that his flight on July 25, 2017, from Delhi to Ahmedabad was expected to land at 3:15 pm, but was delayed, landing at around 4:30. Jain then probed, “I suggest to you that you landed on time that day (July 25), attended the whole (GPCC) meeting (that was scheduled at 5 pm), and to cover up the issuance of whip, you’re changing your statements.” Patel denied the ASG’s allegation with a “no.” Jain pointed out the contradictions with regard to the landing time of the flight, mentioned in three instances. As per Patel’s affidavit, he reached Ahmedabad that day at around 5:00-5:30 pm, whereas his deposition on Thursday mentioned his landing time as around 3:30 pm, and his deposition on Friday amended it to “around 4:30 pm”. Jain asked, “Which is the correct time of landing?” Patel replied, “What I said today (“around 4:30 pm”).” Jain probed, “So your affidavit on oath is false?”, to which Patel replied, “That is not true.” Later, Patel clarified, “It is true I’ve not stated in my affidavit that my flight was late. I clarified this in my oral statement today.” Citing provisions of the Anti-Defection Law and Representation of the People’s Act, Jain asked Patel if he knew that in the election of President of India, Vice President of India and Rajya Sabha members, an MP or MLA who violates the whip issued by any party cannot be disqualified under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution of India. Patel replied, “I only know that in election of President and Vice President such a whip cannot be issued. For RS polls, I’m sure that whip can be issued.” Jain then read out from the whip notification issued by the party: “You’re requested to give your first preference vote in favour of Ahmed Patel. If you don’t follow the whip, you’ll be ineligible and disqualified from contesting elections for the next six years, either as an independent candidate or under the umbrella of any other party as per provisions of the 10th Schedule of the Constitution of India and RPA..” Jain surmised, “This threat was issued to your MLAs to interfere in their right to exercise their vote in the polls.” Patel said Jain’s assertion was “not true.” Jain, however, went on, “Had this threat not been issued, you wouldn’t have won this election,” to which Patel replied again that Jain’s assertion was “not true,” Jain went on to suggest further that Patel won the election by exercising undue influence over voters, which is a corrupt practice under Section 123 of RPA, an assertion that Patel called “completely baseless”.
