B Raman on Varun Gandhi

VARUN GANDHI: AS MUCH SINNED AGAINST AS SINNING

6. In TV interviews, he has given a number of arguments as to why he contended that the tapes had been doctored. Many of his arguments could be dismissed as after-thoughts but not one, namely, his contention that in a tape he is shown as referring to a sister of his whereashe had no sister. If what he says about the contents of the tapes is correct, there is a serious mistake of fact in the remarks which he isshown as making. Where there is such a serious mistake of fact, there is a presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. He has notbeen given the benefit of this presumption.

7. There are certain procedural infirmities in the way the Election Commission has passed its order of March 22,2009, against Varun. Thefirst infirmity arises from the fact that the Commission has passed an ex-parte order without giving Varun an opportunity to appear beforethe Commission and explain his conduct. An ex-parte order is permissible if a person against whom an enquiry is being made was given anopportunity to appear before the enquiry body and explain his conduct, but he did not do so. When a person fails to respond to a summonsto appear before an enquiry body and explain his conduct, he is presumed to be avoiding the due process of the rules or the law. There is anautomatic presumption of guilt against him.