Section 8(3) Representation Of People Act And Rahul Gandhi Disqualification
Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, provides for the
disqualification of a person convicted of certain offenses from being chosen as,
or continuing as, a Member of Parliament or a Member of a Legislative Assembly.
This section has been the subject of much debate and controversy, particularly
in the context of the disqualification of Rahul Gandhi from his position as a
Member of Parliament in 2019.
The Case Against Rahul Gandhi
In 2014, Rahul Gandhi, the former President of the Indian National Congress,
made a speech in which he alleged that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a
right-wing Hindu nationalist organization, was responsible for the assassination
of Mahatma Gandhi. An RSS worker, Rajesh Kunte, filed a defamation case against
Rahul Gandhi in response to these allegations.
In 2019, the Bhiwandi court in Maharashtra found Rahul Gandhi guilty of
defamation and sentenced him to six months in jail, with a fine of Rs. 5,000.
Gandhi appealed the verdict to the Bombay High Court, which granted him bail and
suspended his sentence pending appeal. However, the court did not stay the
disqualification order, and Rahul Gandhi was barred from contesting elections or
holding public office for two years.
The disqualification of Rahul Gandhi was based on Section 8 of the
Representation of the People Act, which provides for the disqualification of a
person convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment for two years or more.
The fact that Gandhi's sentence was suspended pending appeal did not change the
fact that he had been convicted of an offense that carried a potential prison
term of two years or more.
Previous Case Laws
The interpretation of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act has
been the subject of several previous cases.
- Lily Thomas v. Union of India
In 2013, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of Section
8 of the Representation of the People Act in the case of Lily Thomas v.
Union of India. The case involved a challenge to the validity of Section 8
on the grounds that it violated the right to equality under Article 14 of
the Constitution.
The court held that the purpose of Section 8 was to ensure that persons with
a criminal record were not elected to public office, and that this was a
legitimate aim in a democracy. The court also held that the classification
of persons with a criminal record as a separate class for the purposes of
disqualification was reasonable and did not violate the right to equality.
- K Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan
In 2013, the Kerala High Court held that a person who had been sentenced to
imprisonment for six months or more, even if the sentence was suspended, was
disqualified from being elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly
under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act.
The case involved a challenge to the disqualification of P. Jayarajan, a
Member of the Legislative Assembly from Kerala, who had been sentenced to
imprisonment for six months in a case of assault. The court held that
Jayarajan was disqualified from holding public office under Section 8 of the
Representation of the People Act.
- S.R. Bommai v. Union of India
In 1994, the Supreme Court of India held that the power to disqualify a
person from being a Member of Parliament or a Member of a Legislative
Assembly under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act was a
quasi-judicial power that had to be exercised fairly and impartially.
The case involved a challenge to the disqualification of S.R. Bommai, a Member
of Parliament from Karnataka, who had been disqualified on the grounds of
defection. The court held that the power to disqualify a person under Section
Conclusion
The disqualification of Rahul Gandhi as a Member of Parliament under Section
8(3) of the Representation of the People Act has been a controversial issue in
India. While some argue that the disqualification was justified given Gandhi's
conviction in a defamation case, others believe that it was a violation of his
rights as an elected representative.
On the one hand, Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act clearly
states that a person convicted of an offense punishable by imprisonment for two
years or more shall be disqualified from being chosen as, or continuing as, a
Member of Parliament or a Member of a Legislative Assembly. Gandhi was convicted
of defamation, an offense that carries a potential sentence of two years or
more, and therefore, the disqualification appears to be in accordance with the
law.
Moreover, the purpose of Section 8(3) is to ensure that persons with a criminal
record are not elected to public office, and this is a legitimate aim in a
democracy. Disqualifying a person who has been convicted of a serious offense
from holding public office is in the interest of maintaining the integrity and
credibility of the democratic process.
On the other hand, there are concerns that the disqualification of Gandhi may
have been politically motivated. Some argue that the defamation case against him
was a strategic move by the ruling party to silence the opposition, and that the
conviction and subsequent disqualification were an abuse of the legal process.
Furthermore, there are questions about the fairness of the trial and the
validity of the conviction. Some have pointed out that the judgment was based on
a technicality, and that the evidence against Gandhi was not strong enough to
warrant a conviction. The fact that the High Court granted him bail and
suspended his sentence pending appeal suggests that there are doubts about the
validity of the conviction.
In light of these concerns, it is important to ensure that the disqualification
of elected representatives is not misused for political purposes. While it is
important to maintain the integrity of the democratic process by disqualifying
persons with criminal records from holding public office, this should not be
done at the cost of the rights of elected representatives to a fair trial and
due process.
Please Drop Your Comments