Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Restoration Of Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha Membership

A plea has been moved in the Supreme Court challenging the restoration of Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha Membership. His membership was restored vide a notification issued by the Loksabha Secretariat on August 7 in view of the Supreme Court's August 4 order suspending his conviction in the criminal defamation case over the "why all thieves have Modi surname" remark.The plea moved by Lucknow-based Advocate Ashok Pandey contends that once a member of Parliament or of a state legislature loses his office by operation of Law in Article 102, 191 of the Constitution r/w section 8 (3) of the Representation of People Act 1951, he will continue to be disqualified till he is acquitted from the charges levelled against him by some higher court.#JustIn | A plea has been moved in the #SupremeCourtofIndia challenging the restoration of Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi's (@RahulGandhi) #LokSabha Membership.The plea seeks quashing of the LS Secretariat's notification restoring his membership as MP from Kerala's #Wayanad. pic.twitter.com/gAJViwqTn4— Live Law (@LiveLawIndia) September 5, 2023Against this backdrop, the plea argues that once Gandhi lost his Lok Sabha membership, after being convicted in a criminal defamation case and was awarded 2 years of imprisonment, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha was not right in restoring back his lost membership and hence, the plea prays that the LS notification be quashed."The order of Speaker was merely a formal order through which the vacancy of the office of membership of Sri Rahul Gandhi of Lok Sabha was notified. Sri Rahul Gandhi is disqualified from being chosen as or from being, a member of Parliament and state legislature till his conviction is not set aside by the court of appeal and so to restore his membership and to permit him to continue to work as a Member of Parliament is in clear violation of article 102 r/w section 8 (3) of the R P Act 1951," the plea submits.The plea also prays for a writ of mandamus to the Election Commission of India to notify the vacancy to the seats being held by a legislator in case of conviction and sentence, which creates disqualification and hold the election to choose a new legislator from that constituency.The plea further argues that Section 389 of CrPC only permits the court of appeal hearing an appeal against conviction and sentence to suspend the sentence and release the appellant on bail, but, it doesn't permit the court of appeal to suspend the conviction. Here, it is important for our readers to note that as per the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Lok Prahari vs. Election Commission of India and others (2018), once the conviction of an MP or MLA has been stayed by the appellate court under section 389 of the CrPC, the disqualification under sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 of Section 8 of the Representation of the People’s Act, 1951 will not operate.In the Lok Prahari case, it was specifically held that once the conviction has been stayed during the pendency of an appeal, the disqualification which operates as a consequence of the conviction, cannot take or remain in effect.BackgroundGandhi has been embroiled in a controversy over his ‘Why all thieves share the Modi surname’ remark dating back to a political rally at Karnataka’s Kolar in 2019. Accusing Gandhi of defaming everyone with a ‘Modi’ surname, Bharatiya Janata Party MLA and former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi filed a complaint before the Surat Court under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 over this alleged remark.A local court in the Surat district of Gujarat handed him a conviction and a two-year jail sentence in March this year. Although the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate HH Varma suspended his sentence and granted him bail in the case to move an appeal within 30 days, his conviction was not suspended, and therefore, on the very next day, the former MP representing Kerala’s Wayanad constituency was disqualified as a Lok Sabha member in terms of Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution read with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.The 1951 Act provides that a person would be disqualified from their membership of either House of the Parliament or the state legislative assembly or council if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years after their release.After his conviction and subsequent disqualification from the Lok Sabha, Gandhi moved an appeal in a city sessions court in Surat challenging his conviction, along with two applications – one for suspension of sentence, and another for suspension of conviction.The sessions court, on April 20th, dismissed Rahul Gandhi’s application seeking a stay on his conviction in the case, although he was granted bail till the court disposed of his appeal. Against the ruling of the sessions court, Gandhi filed a criminal revision application before the High Court.However, the HC too, refused to grant him interim ...

Plea In Supreme Court Challenges Restoration Of Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha Membership

Sparsh Upadhyay

Tags