Supreme Court Reviews Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha Membership Restoration Amidst Controversy Over ‘Modi Surname’ Remark
The Supreme Court is currently examining a petition that challenges the restoration of Congress Leader Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha membership. This restoration was facilitated by a notification from the Lok Sabha Secretariat on August 7, following the Supreme Court’s order on August 4 to suspend his conviction in the criminal defamation case related to his comment,
“why all thieves have Modi surname.”
The plea, initiated by Lucknow-based Advocate Ashok Pandey, argues that once a Parliament member loses their office due to laws outlined in Article 102 and 191 of the Constitution, combined with section 8 (3) of the Representation of People Act 1951, they remain disqualified until a higher court acquits them of the charges against them. Given this, the plea contends that after Gandhi’s conviction in the defamation case, which resulted in a two-year imprisonment sentence, the Lok Sabha Speaker’s decision to restore his membership was inappropriate. The plea asserts,
“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.”
Furthermore, the plea calls for the Election Commission of India to notify any vacancies for seats held by a legislator in the event of a conviction that leads to disqualification, and subsequently, to hold an election for a new representative for that constituency.
The petition also highlights that Section 389 of CrPC allows an appellate court to suspend a sentence and release the appellant on bail, but it doesn’t explicitly allow for the suspension of the conviction itself.
However, it’s essential to note the Supreme Court’s decision in the Lok Prahari vs. Election Commission of India and others (2018) case. The ruling stated that if an MP or MLA’s conviction is stayed during an appeal, the disqualification resulting from that conviction cannot remain in effect.
Gandhi’s controversial remark, made during a political rally in Karnataka’s Kolar in 2019, led to a defamation complaint filed by BJP MLA and former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi. Following this, a local court in Surat convicted Gandhi and sentenced him to two years in prison in March of this year. Although his sentence was suspended, his conviction was not, leading to his disqualification as a Lok Sabha member.
After challenging his conviction in various courts, including the Gujarat High Court, Gandhi finally approached the Supreme Court. The apex court stayed his conviction on August 4. Throughout these legal proceedings, Gandhi has consistently argued that he had no malicious intent nor any intention to defame the complainant.
This case, given its political implications and the involvement of a prominent political figure, is being keenly observed by legal experts and political analysts alike.
