Rahul Gandhi Is No Longer An MP

Rahul Gandhi is an Indian politician and the former president of the Indian National Congress party. He is a member of the Indian parliament and has held various positions in the Congress party, including that of the party's vice president and general secretary. He is the son of former Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and former Congress president Sonia Gandhi. Rahul Gandhi has been a prominent figure in Indian politics and has been known for his campaigns on issues such as corruption, women's rights, and rural development.

The Congress MP, Rahul Gandhi, has been disqualified from the Lok Sabha after a Surat court convicted him in a defamation case for remarks made at a pre-election rally in 2019. As a result of his conviction by the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat, Shri Rahul Gandhi, Member of Lok Sabha representing the Wayanad Parliamentary Constituency of Kerala, is disqualified from the membership of the Lok Sabha, according to the order released by the Lok Sabha Secretariat. Although the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Surat sentenced him to two years imprisonment on Thursday, it allowed him to be released on bail on a surety and to appeal against the judgment. Rahul remains disqualified until his conviction is stayed by a higher court, under Section 8 of the Representation of People Act. Rahul is barred from the date of his conviction “for a further period of six years since his release,” meaning that if the court order were to stand, he would be disqualified for a cumulative period of eight years, including the jail term handed by the court. He may, therefore, be unable to contest in the 2024 Lok Sabha election.

This year, another sitting Lok Sabha MP faced disqualification after being convicted in a criminal case. On 11 January, Lakshadweep MP P.P. Mohammad Faisal was convicted and sentenced to ten years in jail. Two days later, he was disqualified from the Lower House of Parliament. Although the Kerala High Court stayed his conviction on 25 January, the Election Commission had already announced by-polls in his constituency. Faisal reached the Supreme Court, which stayed the EC order. Subsequently, the Union Law Ministry recommended his reinstatement, following which the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) MP is awaiting the Lok Sabha Speaker’s approval to attend Parliament.

The Representation of People Act, 1951, provides for disqualification for conviction in criminal cases. It provides for disqualification in cases of offences like rape, terrorism, communal disharmony, etc. In such cases, a mere conviction is enough to disqualify a legislator from Parliament. Section 8(3) of the Act provides a second set of offences for disqualification. It states that a mere conviction will not result in disqualification but requires the court to hand in a sentence of at least two years for disqualification under the provision. This is applicable in Rahul’s case.

At the same time, Section 8(4) states that a disqualification “shall not take effect” until the lawmaker’s appeal against the decision is decided by the appellate court. This appeal, however, must be moved within three months. Under Article 102 of the Constitution, a member of the Lok Sabha or Rajya Sabha can be disqualified under five circumstances: holding an office of profit, insanity, insolvency, citizenship, and disqualification by law. One may also be disqualified for ‘defection’ under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, which is desertion of one’s political party. In 2005, the Supreme Court noted that the purpose of such disqualification in the Act was to prevent the “criminalization of politics.” “The purpose of enacting disqualification under Section 8(3) of the RPA is to prevent the criminalization of politics. Those who break the law should not make the law. Generally speaking, the purpose sought to be achieved by enacting disqualification on conviction for certain offences is to prevent persons with a criminal background from entering into politics, and the House — a powerful wing of governance,” the top court had said in the K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayaraman ruling. It had noted that the Act did not provide for immediate disqualification