The Allahabad High Court dismissed a plea seeking Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification as an MP, stating his conviction was already stayed by the Supreme Court. The Court held that a stayed conviction cannot trigger disqualification under the Representation of the People Act.
The Allahabad High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition that wanted the disqualification of Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi from the Lok Sabha in the case of Ashok Pandey v. Rahul Gandhi & Ors.
The petition was filed by advocate Ashok Pandey, who argued that Rahul Gandhi should not have been allowed to contest the 2024 Lok Sabha elections because he was convicted by a Gujarat court in a 2023 defamation case and sentenced to two years.
ALSO READ: Rahul Gandhi Citizenship Row: ED Summons Petitioner Vignesh Shishir
He claimed that under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Gandhi was “automatically disqualified” after the conviction and therefore his nomination papers should not have been accepted by the returning officer.
The Court, however, rejected all these claims. The Bench of Justice Shekhar B Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla pointed out that the Supreme Court had already stayed Gandhi’s conviction in August 2023, and once a conviction is stayed, the legal disqualification under Section 8(3) does not apply.
The Bench clearly stated that
“we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises in the present matter, as the matter has been categorically settled by the Supreme Court and is no longer res integra (not bound by prior decisions).”
The judges explained that Section 8(3) applies only when a conviction is active. They added that a stay of conviction removes the legal consequences of that conviction until the appeal is finally decided.
The Court said,
“the moment a higher court stays a conviction, the anathema of conviction goes out of the window and the person against whom such conviction is stayed, though not absolved, cannot be stated to be a convicted person.”
The Bench also highlighted the difference between a stay on sentence and a stay on conviction. According to the Court, only a stay on conviction removes disqualification, while a stay on sentence alone does not stop the statutory bar under the RP Act.
The petitioner relied on the Supreme Court judgment in BR Kapur vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2001) to argue that a conviction continues unless overturned.
But the High Court disagreed, saying that the BR Kapur case was different because in that situation the sentence was stayed but the conviction was not. In Rahul Gandhi’s case, the conviction itself was stayed, which changes the legal effect entirely.
The petitioner also tried to compare Gandhi’s case with that of Afzal Ansari (2023), arguing that the Supreme Court had specifically allowed Ansari to contest elections while his appeal was pending, but did not say the same for Gandhi.
The Bench rejected this argument too, making it clear that once a conviction is stayed, the person does not need any special permission, because the stay itself removes the disqualification automatically.
The Court said that the legal effect of a stay of conviction is the same, whether or not the Supreme Court mentions contesting elections.
To support its reasoning, the High Court relied on the established legal position from Lily Thomas v. Union of India, which confirms that a stayed conviction cannot trigger disqualification under the Representation of the People Act.
ALSO READ: Cross-Examination Begins in Rahul Gandhi Defamation Case at Sultanpur Cour
The Bench observed that the issue raised in the petition had already been conclusively settled by the Supreme Court, and therefore did not require reconsideration by the High Court.
Rahul Gandhi was elected as the Member of Parliament from the Rae Bareli constituency in Uttar Pradesh in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections after his conviction had already been stayed.
Since the Court found no legal merit in the petitioner’s arguments, it dismissed the plea. Advocate Ashok Pandey, the petitioner, argued the matter in person.
Case Title:
Ashok Pandey v. Rahul Gandhi & Ors.
Read Order:
