Rahul moves SC, says it’s against principles of democracy

The Rahul Gandhi issue has reached the Supreme Court with a petition challenging the automatic disqualification of elected members upon conviction of 2 years.

Rahul Gandhi was earlier this week convicted and sentenced to two years in a defamation case as a result of which, his Lok Sabha membership stood disqualified.

In a Supreme Court a petition has been filed challenging the automatic disqualification of elected legislative bodies, upon being convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years under Section 8 (3) of the Representation of People Act 1951. The petition stated that the immediate reason for approaching the Supreme Court is in the view of the recent developments in connection with Rahul Gandhi.

It argued that the blanket disqualification, irrespective of nature, gravity, and seriousness of the offences is against the principles of natural justice.

Arguing that Section 8(3) of the 1951 Act is ultra vires of the Constitution of India, the petition said that it is also in stark contradiction to Section 8(1), Section 8(A), 9, 9A, 10, 10A, and 11 of the 1951 Act.

"Section 8(3) restrains the members from freely discharging their duties cast upon them by the voter's of their respective constituency, which is against the principles of democracy," the petition said.

The petition also contended that Section 8(1) of the 1951 Act clearly categorises the offences, keeping in view the nature of offences for disqualification of members of parliament. However Section 8(3) provides for a blanket automatic disqualification, on the basis of the quantum of sentencing and imprisonment, which is self-contradictory and creates ambiguity as to the proper procedure for disqualification.

It also went on to emphasise that the intent of the legislature for laying down the said 1951 Act was to disqualify convicted elected members who had committed serious or heinous offences.

Distinguish classification of offence:

While arguing that the grounds for disqualification need to be specific, the petition highlighted that the Code for Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) distinguishes the 'classification of offences' and categorises offences into cognisable and non-cognisable and bailable and non-bailable. Hence it states that under such circumstances, the grounds for disqualification must be specific with the nature of the offences as specified under the CrPC and not in a blanket form.

"The present scenario provides a blanket disqualification, irrespective of the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the offences, allegedly against the concerned Member, and provides for an "automatic" disqualification, which is against the principles of Natural Justices, since various convictions are reversed at the appellate stage, and under such circumstances, the valuable time of a member, who is discharging his duties towards the public at large, shall be rendered futile," the petition said.

A chilling effect:

The petition highlighted that Members of Parliament are the 'voice of the people.' A member's representation is the right of freedom of speech and expression of millions of supporters who have elected the member in that constituency and voters who have voted for the political party, the petition said.

"Right under Article 19(1)(a) enjoyed by the Member of the Parliament is an extension of the voice of millions of his supporters. If the offence under Section 499 and 500 of the IPC, which just technically has a maximum punishment of 2 years is not removed singularly from the sweeping effect of the judgement in Lily Thomas, it will have a chilling effect on the right of representation of the citizens," the petition said.