A petition has been filed in the Supreme Court challenging the reinstatement of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s membership of Parliament. It has been filed by Lucknow’s lawyer Ashok Pandey.
Pandey has submitted in the petition that once a member of Parliament or State Legislature ceases to hold office under Articles 102, 191 of the Constitution read with Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, he shall be disqualified until That no Higher Court acquits him of the charges leveled against him.
Request made to cancel Lok Sabha notification
The petition argued that once Rahul Gandhi had lost his Lok Sabha membership after being convicted in a criminal defamation case and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment, the Lok Sabha Speaker was unable to restore his (Rahul’s) lost membership. were not correct. It has been requested in the petition that the Lok Sabha notification be quashed.
Rahul Gandhi’s Parliament membership was restored on August 7
Let us tell you that on August 4, the Supreme Court had suspended the conviction of Rahul Gandhi in the criminal defamation case involving ‘Modi surname’. Following the order of the Supreme Court in the case, on August 7, the Lok Sabha Secretariat, while issuing a notification, restored the Lok Sabha membership of Rahul Gandhi.
What is the whole matter ?
In 2019, due to one of his statements made in Kolar, Karnataka, Rahul Gandhi got embroiled in this controversy. In a public meeting in Kolar, he had said that why all thieves have Modi as their surname? On this, BJP MLA and former Gujarat minister Purnesh Modi filed a defamation case against Rahul Gandhi.
In March this year, the Surat court of Gujarat convicted Rahul Gandhi in the case and sentenced him to two years imprisonment. Although the Chief Judicial Magistrate’s court granted him bail to file an appeal within 30 days, his conviction was not suspended and Rahul was disqualified as a Lok Sabha member the very next day.
After this, Rahul had filed two applications in the Surat sessions court challenging his conviction, one for suspension of sentence and the other for suspension of conviction. The sessions court had rejected his application seeking stay of conviction, although the court granted him bail till the disposal of his appeal.
Rahul had filed a criminal revision petition in the High Court against the decision of the sessions court. The High Court had also refused to give him interim relief. Ultimately Rahul challenged the decision of Gujarat High Court in the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court had stayed his conviction on August 4.
