A petition has been submitted to the Supreme Court questioning the automatic disqualification of Rahul Gandhi under the Representation of the People Act (RPA).

Advertisements

An appeal was filed in the supreme court on Saturday against the automatic expulsion of lawmakers from parliament or the State Assembly after a conviction in a criminal case.

The petition challenged the constitutional legitimacy of section 8(3) of the Representation of people’s Act, 1951.

Advocate Deepak Prakash filed the petition on behalf of social activist and Ph.D. scholar Aabha Muralidharan, Muralidharan is a social worker from Malappuram, seeking a statement that there is no automatic exclusion of persons under section 8(3) of the Representation of people’s Act, 1951.

Rahul Gandhi disqualification as MP on Friday by the Lok Sabha secretariat after his conviction and sentence to two years by a Surat court on March 23 for his alleged remarks as to ‘ why all thieves had modi surname ‘ at the Kolar Rally 2019.

The plea prayed that automatic disqualification under section 8(3) should be declared as the ultra virus of the constitution because It is arbitrary, illegal, and violative of the fundamental right to equality.

What is section 8(3) of the RPA ,1951

Section 8(3) states that “ A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for a minimum 2 years [ apart from any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)] for a crime is statute – barred from the date of this conviction and remains statute bared for a further six years from the date of dismissal.

The application also noted that section 8(3) is ultra virus of the constitution because It restricts members of parliament or members of legislative assembly from freely discharging their duties imposed on them by voters in their respective constituency, the petition added.

“The current scenario provides a blanket disqualification, irrespective of the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the member’s alleged offenses, and provides for an ‘automatic’ ban; Disqualification contrary to the principles of natural justice as multiple convictions are overturned on appeal and in such circumstances, the member’s valuable time is wasted in the performance of their duties to the public.” The prosecution, filed by Advocate Deepak Prakash, declared.

Prosecutors further allege that Section 8(3) of the 1951 Act violates Section 8(1), Sections 8A, 9, 9A, 10, 10A and 11 of the 1951 Act. This is because of the automatic blanket disqualification aspect of Section 8 (3), merely based on the quantum of sentencing and imprisonment. In contrast, Section 8 (1) of the 1951 Act “clearly categorises the offences, keeping in view the nature of offences.”

Regarding Gandhi’s disqualification, the reasoning stated that the conviction had been appealed, but given the workings of the current disqualification rules under the 1951 Act, the appeal phase, the nature of the offences, the seriousness of the crimes, and their impact on the Society and on the land are not taken into account and in general the automatic expiry is declared.

MPs have proven they are the voice of the people, defending the right to freedom of expression and expression of the millions of supporters who elected them.

“All that the appellants and the instance want to show is that the right of art. 19(1)(a) that the MP enjoys is an extension of the voice of millions of his supporters,” he said.

The allegation was that the rule ignored the Code of Criminal Procedure (crpc) first program of “classification of crimes,” which can be divided into two categories: recognizable and non-recognizable, declassifiable and non-declarable.

It has been found that the Court of Appeals in Lily Thomas v. The Indian of Union had concluded that Article 8(1) was ultra vires. after three months from the date or, if an appeal or a motion to review the conviction or sentence is filed within that period until the appeal or motion has been considered by the judge.

Prosecutors alleged that Lily Thomas’ verdict was “blatantly abused by political parties for personal vengeance.”

The petition states that if the crime of defamation under the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment, is not removed from the general effect of the Lily Thomas verdict, it will become a ” common cold” have an impact on the right to citizen representation”.

In the centre’s appeal, the Electoral Commission, Rajya Sabha Secretariat, and Lok Sabha Secretariat were named by the party as accused.

requests that no automatic revocation pursuant to section 8 (3) of the 1951 Act, and in the event of automatic revocation of the Act, the Constitution is considered ultra vires.

It also requested that an arrest warrant under IPC Section 499 (defamation), or any other offense carrying a maximum penalty of two years in prison, should not automatically disqualify any outgoing member of the legislature for “violating freedom of speech and expression the chosen of the common man”.

In announcing his disqualification, the Lok Sabha Secretariat issued a notice saying it would take effect on March 23, the day of Gandhi’s sentencing.

“Following his conviction by the Supreme Court, Surat … Rahul Gandhi, a member of the Lok Sabha representing the constituency of the Wayanad Parliament in Kerala, shall be disqualified from membership of the Lok Sabha with effect from the date of his conviction and Volume. March 23, 2023,” the statement said. The Surat Court on Thursday sentenced Gandhi to two years in prison in a defamation case against Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Purnesh Modi.

Written by -Anushka yadav student of the ba.llb 2nd semester at Rnb global University Bikaner, Rajasthan

Admin