Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha Disqualification: Legal Position On Suspension Of Conviction | Explainer

Congress leader Rahul Gandhi was recently disqualified from his position as a Member of Parliament after his conviction in a defamation case. He was disqualified in accordance with Article 102(1)(e) of the Indian Constitution read with Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.He has filed an appeal in Surat Sessions Court to challenge his conviction in the defamation case. While his sentence has already been suspended during the pendency of the appeal, his application for suspension of conviction is pending. If the same is allowed, his membership will be reinstated, subject to the issuance of a notification by the Lok Sabha Secretariat. The next hearing will take place on April 13.Aiman J. Chishti explains the legal position on the suspension of conviction.Difference Between Suspension Of Sentence And Suspension Of ConvictionWhen an individual is found guilty of committing a crime, they are convicted by the court. A judgment of conviction is followed by an order on sentence.However, there is an opportunity to appeal the conviction and sentence. Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure( CrPC) allows an appellate court to suspend the execution of the sentence or order that has been appealed against, and release the appellant on bail if they are in confinement. The court may do so by providing written reasons for their decision.Although the CrPC does not explicitly mention the suspension of conviction, it also does not prohibit such suspension in any manner. As a result, the courts have decided on when an appellate court may suspend a conviction.In simple terms, Suspension of sentence refers to a situation where a court has found an accused guilty of a crime and has imposed a sentence, but when the convicted person files an appeal, the execution of the sentence is temporarily postponed and the accused may be released on bail. This means that the convicted person is not required to serve the sentence immediately, and the sentence is put on hold until the appeal against the conviction is finally decided.On the other hand, the suspension of conviction refers to a situation where the court not only suspends the sentence but puts in abeyance the conviction order. In practical terms, it would mean that the convict will not attract any other consequences till the final disposal of appeal. The apex court in the case of Retti Deenabandhu and Others v. State of Andhra Pradesh observed that a convicted person in challenging his conviction in appeal not only seeks to avoid undergoing the punishment imposed upon him as a result of the conviction but he also wants that other evil consequences flowing from the conviction should not visit him and that the stigma which attaches to him because of the conviction should be wiped out.Courts On Suspension Of ConvictionThe case of Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang & Ors addressed whether Section 389 (1) of the CrPC allows the Appellate Court to stay the operation of a conviction. The Apex Court said that if the conviction leads to disqualification, then Section 389(1) should not be narrowly interpreted to prevent the court from granting the order of suspension of conviction in appropriate cases. This clearly means that it is implicit in Section 389(1) that along with the order of suspension of conviction there can also be suspension of conviction.However, the apex court also observed that an order granting stay of conviction is not the rule but is an exception to be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the facts of a case. “An order of stay, of course, does not render the conviction non-existent, but only non-operative,” explained the court.The Supreme Court also expressly dealt with the suspension of conviction when an MP was disqualified in consequence of conviction in the landmark case of Navjot Singh Sidhu v State of Punjab & ors, Sidhu was a sitting MP when he was convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC and was sentenced to 3 years of R.I. and a fine of Rs. 1 lakh. He was granted bail, and thus the execution of the sentence imposed upon him was suspended. He also moved an application for suspending the order of conviction passed against him by the High Court. The Apex Court took note of the circumstances which led to the filing of the application for suspension of conviction. Sidhu had resigned from the membership of the Lok Sabha. However, he wanted to contest the election again and face the electorate in the changed scenario. The reason for seeking a stay or suspension of the order of conviction arose on account of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - the provision states that a person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years “shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.”The Apex Court said:“He (Sidhu) has chosen to adopt a moral path and has set high standards in public life by resigning...

Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha Disqualification: Legal Position On Suspension Of Conviction | Explainer

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha Disqualification: Legal Position On Suspension Of Conviction | Explainer

Aiman J. Chishti

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers