Former Congress president Rahul Gandhi has been disqualified as a member of the Lok Sabha after being convicted in a criminal defamation case over his Modi surname remark. A Surat court on Thursday (March 23) sentenced Congress leader Rahul Gandhi to two years' imprisonment in a 2019 defamation case over his remarks on the Modi surname. However, Rahul Gandhi was also granted bail on the same day. Rahul Gandhi guilty under section 499 and 500 of IPC.
The court of Chief Judicial Magistrate HH Verma convicted Rahul Gandhi under sections 499 and 500 of the IPC.
According to Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act of 1951, conviction for an offense punishable with imprisonment for two years or more may lead to disqualification from the House.
At the same time, Section 8(4) of the RP Act, 1951 states that disqualification takes effect after the lapse of three months from the date of conviction, within which period the convicted legislator could file an appeal against the conviction before the Supreme Court.
However, this provision was struck down by the Supreme Court in its 2013 judgment in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 490 OF 2005), declaring it unconstitutional.
What is 'Lily Thomas Vs Union of India' case?
A PIL was filed before the apex court in 2005 by Lily Thomas, a Kerala-based lawyer and NGO Lok Prahari through its general secretary SN Shukla. Section 8(4) of the RPA was challenged in this petition. This section protects convicted legislators from disqualification due to pending appeals in the Supreme Court.
The plea sought to cleanse Indian politics of criminal elements by barring convicted politicians from contesting elections or holding official seats. It drew attention to Articles 102(1) and 197(1) of the Constitution. Article 102(1) prescribes disqualification for membership of either House of Parliament and Article 19(1) prescribes disqualification for membership of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State. The plea argued that these provisions empower the Center to add other disqualification
Prior to this decision, convicted MPs could easily file an appeal against their conviction and continue in their official seats.
On July 10, 2013, a Supreme Court bench of Justices AK Patnaik and SJ Mukhopadhyay held that Parliament had no power to enact sub-sections (4) and (4) of section 8 of the Act. It is outside the purview of the constitution. The Court also held that if a sitting Member of Parliament or State Legislature is appointed under sub-section (1) of Section 8 of the RPA.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy