After Rahul ouster, plea filed in SC against automatic disqualification of MPs on conviction

As per the plea automatic disqualification under Section 8 (3) should be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution, for being arbitrary, illegal

Following the disqualification of Rahul Gandhi as an MP, a plea has been moved in the Supreme Court, challenging the validity of provisions mandating "blanket and automatic" disqualification of legislators upon conviction and sentence, irrespective of the nature, gravity, and seriousness of the offences.

Advocate Deepak Prakash filed the petition on behalf of Aabha Muralidharan, a social worker from Malappuram, seeking a direction that there did not exist any automatic disqualification under Section 8 (3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

The plea cited the disqualification of Rahul Gandhi as an MP on Friday by the Lok Sabha secretariat upon his conviction and sentence of two years by a Surat court on March 23 for his alleged remarks as to 'why all thieves had Modi surname' in a rally in 2019 in Kolar.

The plea prayed that automatic disqualification under Section 8 (3) should be declared as ultra vires of the Constitution, for being arbitrary, illegal and violative of the fundamental right to equality.

Read | Explained: The Lily Thomas case that changed the disqualification law for convicted MPs or MLAs

It also contended that the mandate of Section 499 (defamation) of IPC or any other offence prescribing maximum punishment of two years will not automatically disqualify any sitting member of any legislative body since it violated the freedom of speech and expression of an elected representative.

The petition contended factors such as nature, gravity, role, moral turpitude and the role of the accused, ought to be examined while considering disqualification under Chapter III of the 1951 Act.

"The grounds for disqualification ought to be specific with the nature of offences as specified under the Code for Criminal Procedure and not in a blanket form, as is currently in force under Section 8(3) of the RP Act," it said.

It further contended the interpretation provided by the Supreme Court in the Lily Thomas case (2013) requires re-examination, to the effect of adjudicating the provisions of disqualification under Chapter III of the 1951 Act, vis a vis, the classification of offences in the schedule and the gravity of offences, which can be petty, serious or heinous in nature.

"The operations of Lily Thomas case are being blatantly misused for wreaking personal vengeance against the political parties," it claimed.

The petitioner sought a direction that criminal defamation must be excepted from the sweep of the judgement in the Lily Thomas case, otherwise it would have a chilling effect on the right of representation of the citizens.

"The right under Article 19 1 (a) (freedom of speech and expression) enjoyed by the Member of the Parliament is an extension of the voice of millions of his supporters. If the offence under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC, which just technically has a maximum punishment of two 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," it said.