Plea filed in SC challenging Rahul Gandhi’s restoration in Lok Sabha

A petition challenging the restoration of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s Lok Sabha membership has been filed in the Supreme Court on Tuesday. Notably, Gandhi was disqualified after the court sentenced him to two years’ imprisonment in the criminal defamation case over ‘Modi surname’ remark. However, later the top court stayed his conviction and restored the Lok Sabha membership on August 7.

Why was Rahul Gandhi sentenced imprisonment?

According to the information, Rahul Gandhi was sentenced to two years imprisonment in the defamation case, which resulted in the disqualification as an MP from Kerala’s Wayanad under the rigours of the Representation of People Act.

What does petition against Rahul Gandhi says?

A Lucknow-based advocate Ashok Pandey moved a petition in the Supreme Court seeking quashing of the notification of Lok Sabha by which Gandhi’s membership was restored. Pandey in his petition said that once Gandhi lost his Lok Sabha membership, after being convicted in a criminal defamation case and was awarded two years of imprisonment, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha was not right in restoring back his lost membership.

The plea submitted by Pandey, according to the law says that once a member of Parliament or of a state legislature loses his office by operation of Law in Article 102, 191 of the Constitution read with section 8 (3) of the Representation of People Act 1951, he will remain disqualified till he is pronounced not guilty from the charges levelled against him by some higher court.

“Rahul Gandhi lost his membership of Lok Sabha when he was convicted for defamation and was awarded two years sentence and as such the Speaker was not right in restoring his membership,” the plea stated.

The submitted petition further says, “Speaker of Lok Sabha was right in declaring the loss of membership of Rahul Gandhi when he was convicted by the trial court and was awarded two years sentence but he was wrong when on the basis of an order passed by the Supreme Court staying the conviction, the order passed by him on January 13 was restored vide order impugned dated August 7.”