Legal Services India - Law Articles is a Treasure House of Legal Knowledge and information, the law resources is an ever growing database of authentic legal information.

» Home
Thursday, May 16, 2024

Rahul Gandhi Stands Disqualified As Lok Sabha MP After Being Sentenced To Two Years Imprisonment

Posted in: Civil Laws
Sat, Mar 25, 23, 07:35, 1 Year ago
star star star star star
0 out of 5 with 0 ratings
comments: 0 - hits: 41823
Purnesh Modi vs Rahul Gandhi by a Court in Gujarat that was filed by a BJP MLA Purnesh Modi who is former Gujarat Minister and BJP MLA from Surat West over his remark at a poll rally in Karnataka’s Kolar.

In a major blow to the former Congress President Rahul Gandhi who is also a Member of Lok Sabha representing the Wayanad Parliamentary Constituency of Kerala, he has been disqualified from Lok Sabha after his conviction in a 2019 criminal defamation case titled Purnesh Modi vs Rahul Gandhi by a Court in Gujarat that was filed by a BJP MLA Purnesh Modi who is former Gujarat Minister and BJP MLA from Surat West over his remark at a poll rally in Karnataka’s Kolar.

The Court said that:
The case of the complainant has been proven beyond doubt based on witness statements, documentary and electronic evidence. It must be mentioned here that the remarks of Rahul Gandhi had been video graphed by the video surveillance team and video viewing team duly notified by the office of Deputy Commissioner.

It must be noted that a Magistrate Court in Surat district of Gujarat while convicting and sentencing Rahul to two years imprisonment in a criminal defamation case said that Rahul Gandhi insulted all persons with the surname ‘Modi’. It may be recalled that Rahul Gandhi was sentenced to two years imprisonment for his Why all thieves have Modi surname comment which he allegedly made during the Parliamentary election campaign in 2019! The Gujarat High Court had vacated the stay on trial in the criminal defamation case in February this year.

To be sure, it must be mentioned that the Judge Hadirash Varma in his 168-page judgment in Gujarati said in no uncertain terms that since Gandhi is a Member of Parliament (MP), whatever he says will have a greater impact. Thus, he should have exercised restraint said the Judge. It cannot be glossed over that the Judge also said that, The accused had taken the reference of the surname of the current Prime Minister Shri Narendra Modi, to satisfy his political greed and insulted and defamed 13 crore people living in the whole of India having the surname ‘Modi’. The court suspended the sentence for 30 days so that Mr. Gandhi can appeal in a higher court.

It is worth noting that the Judge minces absolutely no words to hold unequivocally that:
The accused himself is an MP and the matter of him addressing the people as an MP is a very serious issue because, when an MP addresses the public in the capacity of a parliamentarian, it has a very wide impact on the public. The seriousness of the crime is greater if the accused is an MP and the public if the accused is punished less, it sends a wrong message to the society.

It is worth stating that a notification from the lower House, signed by the Secretary General Utpal Kumar Singh said clearly that, Mr. Gandhi stands disqualified from the membership of Lok Sabha from the date of his conviction, as per the terms of Article 102 (1)(e) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

It must be mentioned here that the Lok Sabha Secretariat said in its notification that Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification as Wayanad MP is effective from March 23 which is the day of his conviction. As per law, if the conviction is not overturned or quantum of sentence is not reduced by any higher court, Rahul Gandhi in such case will not be able to contest elections for the next eight years. The Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate HH Varma who held Rahul guilty of criminal defamation under Sections 499 and 500 of the IPC has given bail to him on a bond of Rs 15,000 and suspended the sentence to allow him to appeal the verdict in a higher court.

It cannot be certainly lightly dismissed by anyone that none other than senior and eminent lawyer Mahesh Jethmalani told NDTV news channel that Congress’s Rahul Gandhi who was convicted for two years by a Surat Court in a 2019 defamation case involving his remarks on Prime Minister Narendra Modi about the Modi surname stands automatically disqualified from Parliament under a Supreme Court judgment of 2013. Mr Jethmalani said candidly in an exclusive interview that, By the operation of the law, he stands disqualified but the decision has to be communicated to the Speaker. But as of today, he stands disqualified.

It must be however clarified that while adding a caveat, Mr Jethmalani said that Mr Gandhi can stay in Parliament only if a higher court puts a freeze on the trial court judgment, as happened in a few earlier cases. It definitely deserves mentioning that the BJP has been baying for the disqualification of Rahul Gandhi since early this year and initially it was primarily over his comments on the Hindenburg Adani issue. Later we saw how BJP demanded that Rahul be ousted over his comments at the Cambridge University which the BJP contended were anti-national. Even on this case BJP leaders said that the law is equal for all and Rahul must face the consequences.

In hindsight, it may be recalled that in the landmark Lily Thomas vs Union of India case that was delivered finally on 10 July, 2013 the Supreme Court had explicitly ruled that, Any MP, MLA or MLC who is convicted of a crime and given a minimum of 2 years jail loses membership of the House with immediate effect. It may be recalled that the Apex Court had scrapped the Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, which allowed elected representatives three months time to file an appeal; against their conviction, calling it unconstitutional.

Ironically, it may be recalled that when an ordinance against the Lily Thomas judgment was brought in by the then Dr Manmohan Singh led UPA government, which was in helm of affairs at that time, it was Rahul Gandhi himself who had trashed it, telling the media most bluntly that it should be torn up and thrown away.

We had seen how at that time the Opposition had slammed the Congress and termed it as a move to protect Congress ally and former Bihar Chief Minister Lalu Prasad Yadav who was being tried in the fodder scam. It may be also recalled that it was none other than Mr Rahul Gandhi who had at that time himself most vocally said in what those viewing it from a political angle were seeing it as a huge embarrassment for the then PM Dr Manmohan Singh who had himself cleared the Ordinance without mincing any words whatsoever that, I personally think what the government is doing on the ordinance is wrong. It was a political decision, every party does it, and there is a time to stop this nonsense…If we actually want to stop corruption then we cannot make these compromises.

In its order in Gujarati, the Court observed that, The complaint was lodged not only because the ‘Modi’ community or people from the caste were defamed but because the complainant (Purnesh Modi) himself was distressed. Moreover the accused could have stopped at calling Shri Narendra Modi a thief(Shri Narendra Modi ne chor nu upnaam aapi ne) and equating him with economic offenders…like Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, Mehul Choksi, Vijay Mallya. He could have limited the discussion to these people. But the accused intentionally insulted all those with the surname or name ‘Modi’ and said in his speech, Why do all the thieves have the name Modi?

Further, the Court said that the accused (Gandhi) had admitted many facts in the case in his statements and if these facts are taken into account, then the accused has accepted the controversial facts.

Most significantly, while handing out the punishment to Rahul Gandhi, the Court at Surat said that:
The Supreme Court had advised the accused to stay alert yet it does not appear as if it has made any difference in the conduct of the accused. Moreover, the accused is a Member of Parliament and as an MP what he speaks before the public is taken seriously because when a person addresses the public as an MP, it has a larger impact and this makes the offence even more serious. If a milder punishment is handed out to the accused, then a wrong message would go to the public and the purpose of the defamation (law) would not be served and any one would easily defame anyone.

It would be instructive to note that the former Union Law Minister Ravi Shankar Prasad while commenting on this latest event of Rahul Gandhi’s conviction said that, Does the Congress want Rahul Gandhi to have complete freedom to abuse people? There is rule of law…and it will prevail.

He also said that:
The law of India is that if an individual or an organization has been defamed by defamatory comments or abuses, they have the right to seek redress. But Congress has an objection to it…They want complete freedom for Rahul Gandhi to utter abuses. He will find himself facing more troubles if he doesn’t refrain from making defamatory remarks. It has become Rahul’s nature to defame and weaken the country as well as level filthiest abuses like accusations against Prime Minister Narendra Modi and BJP. A number of defamation cases have been filed against Gandhi for his remarks.

While speaking outside Parliament, the Union Minister Piyush Goyal said that, Rahul Gandhi had made it a habit to defy and disrespect every democratic institution, whether it is Parliament or judiciary. He should come out of this dynastic mindset and realize that no individual is bigger than the country, bigger than the people of India, bigger than the Constitution of India and nobody should consider himself above the law.

In essence, we all must learn from this notable judgment drawing the right lessons and should always refrain from making any defamatory remarks against any person of a particular community or caste or religion as doing so would only land us in deep trouble as we see in this leading case. It merits no reiteration that slamming judiciary without any proof can also land those who make wild allegations and accuse it to be functioning at the behest of the ruling party!

Of course, all doors are still certainly not close for Rahul Gandhi and he has the option before him to appeal to the higher courts! But he definitely must refrain from indulging in personal attacks in future just like others to save himself from getting convicted as we see in this leading case also! Rahul’s lawyer Kirit Panwala pleaded for a milder sentence on the ground that his client didn’t intend to insult anyone. But all such pleas failed to cut ice and we saw that how Rahul Gandhi ultimately got convicted. I am sure that from next time he will make sure not to say anything against any particular community, caste or religion as this will only prove to be a self-inflicted wound which no one will ever like to inflict upon oneself!

Sanjeev Sirohi, Advocate,
s/o Col (Retd) BPS Sirohi, A 82, Defence Enclave,
Sardhana Road, Kankerkhera, Meerut - 250001, Uttar Pradesh.

Comments

There are no comments for this article.
Only authorized users can leave comments. Please sign in first, or register a free account.
Share
Sponsor
About Author
Sanjeev Sirohi Advocate
Member since Apr 20, 2018
Location: Meerut, UP
Following
User not following anyone yet.
You might also like
Present space law framework in the country. Space has heightened the curiosity of mankind for centuries. Due to the advancement in technology, there is fierce competition amongst nations for the next space war.
The scope of Section 151 CPC has been explained by the Supreme Court in the case K.K. Velusamy v. N. Palanisamy
Co-operative Societies are governed by the Central Co-operative Societies Act 1912, where there is no State Act. In West Bengal they were governed by the West Bengal Co-operative Societies Act
Registration enables an NGO to be a transparent in its operations to the Government, Donors, to its members and to its urgent community.
The ingredients of Section 18 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 are
Drafting of legal Agreements and Deeds in India
ST Land rules in India,West Bengal
The paper will discuss about the provisions related to liquidated damages. How the law has evolved. Difference between the provisions of England and India.
A privilege may not be a right, but, under the constitution of the country, I do not gather that any broad distinction is drawn between the rights and the privileges that were enjoyed and that were taken away.
It is most hurting to see that in India, the soldiers who hail from Jammu and Kashmir and who join forces either in Army or in CRPF or in BSF or in police or in any other forces against the will of majority
Pukhraj v/s State of Uttarakhand warned high caste priests very strongly against refusing to perform religious ceremonies on behalf of lower caste pilgrims. It took a very stern view of the still existing practice of exclusion of the SC/ST community in Haridwar.
This article aims to define delay in civil suits. It finds the general as well as specific causes leading to pendency of civil suits and over-burdening of courts. This articles suggests some solutions which are pragmatic as well as effective to reduce the burden of the courts and speed up the civil judicial process.
This article deals with importance, needs, highlights and provisions of the Surrogacy Bill 2016, which is passed by the lok sabha on 19th December 2018 .
Cross Examination In Case of Injunction Suits, Injunctions are governed by Sections 37, 38, 39 to Section 42 of Specific Relief Act.
Satishchandra Ratanlal Shah v Gujarat inability of a person to return the loan amount cannot give rise to a criminal prosecution for cheating unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown right at the beginning of the transaction..
Dr.Ashok Khemka V/s Haryana upheld the integrity of eminent IAS officer because of his upright and impeccable credentials has emerged as an eyesore for politicians of all hues but also very rightly expunged Haryana Chief Minister ML Khattar adverse remarks in his Personal Appraisal Report
State of Rajasthan and others v. Mukesh Sharma has upheld the constitutional validity of Rule 8(2)(i) of the Rajasthan Prisons (Shortening of Sentences) Rules, 2006.
Gurmit Singh Bhatia Vs Kiran Kant Robinson the Supreme Court reiterated that, in a suit, the plaintiff is the dominus litis and cannot be forced to add parties against whom he does not want to fight unless there is a compulsion of the rule of law.
explicitly in a latest landmark ruling prohibited the use of loudspeakers in the territory without prior permission from the authorities.
The Commissioner of Police v/s Devender Anand held that filing of criminal complaint for settling a dispute of civil nature is abuse of process of law.
Rajasthan Vs Shiv Dayal High Court cannot dismiss a second appeal merely on the ground that there is a concurrent finding of two Courts (whether of dismissal or decreeing of the suit), and thus such finding becomes unassailable.
Complete Guide to Pleadings in India, get your Written statement and Plaint Drafted by highly qualified lawyers at reasonable rate.
Sushil Chandra Srivastava vs UP imposed absolute prohibition on use of DJs in the state and asked the state government to issue a toll-free number, dedicated to registering complaints against illegal use of loudspeakers. It will help control noise pollution to a very large extent if implemented in totality.
Rajasthan v/s Shri Ramesh Chandra Mundra that institutional independence, financial autonomy is integral to independence of judiciary. directing the Rajasthan Government to reconsider the two decade old proposal of the then Chief Justice of Rajasthan High Court to upgrade 16 posts of its Private Secretaries as Senior Private Secretaries
The Indian Contract act, 1872 necessities significant consideration in a few of its areas. One such area of the Indian Contract act of 1872 is where if any person finds a lost good belonging to others and takes them into his custody acts as the bailee to the owner of the good.
Government has notified 63 provisions of the Motor Vehicles Amendment Act 2019 including the ones dealing with enhanced penalties
Jose Paulo Coutinho vs. Maria Luiza Valentina Pereira no attempt has been made yet to frame a Uniform Civil Code applicable to all citizens of the country despite exhortations by it. Whether succession to the property of a Goan situated outside Goa in India will be governed by the Portuguese Civil Code, 1867
In a major legal setback to Pakistan, the High Court of England and Wales rejecting rightly Pakistan's frivolous claims and ruling explicitly that the VII Nizam of Hyderabad's descendants and India can collect 35 million pounds from Londons National Westminster Bank.
Power of Attorney and the Specific Relief Act, 1963
air pollution in Delhi and even adjoining regions like several districts of West UP are crossing all limits and this year even in districts adjoining Delhi like Meerut where air pollution was never felt so much as is now being felt.
Dr Syed Afzal (Dead) v/sRubina Syed Faizuddin that the Civil Courts while considering the application seeking interim mandatory injunction in long pending cases, should grant opportunity of hearing to the opposite side, interim mandatory injunctions can be granted after granting opportunity of hearing to the opposite side.
students of Banaras Hindu University's (BHU's) Sanskrit Vedvigyan Sankay (SVDVS) went on strike demanding the cancellation of the appointment of Assistant Professor Feroze Khan and transfer him to another faculty.
Odisha Development Corporation Ltd Vs. M/s Anupam Traders & Anr. the time tested maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit which in simple and straight language means that, No party should suffer due to the act of Court.
M/S Daffodills Pharmaceuticals Ltd v/s. State of U.P that no one can be inflicted with an adverse order, without being afforded a minimum opportunity of hearing. In other words, the Apex Court reiterated the supreme importance of the legal maxim and latin phrase titled Audi alteram partem
Ram Murti Yadav v/s State of Uttar Pradesh the standard or yardstick for judging the conduct of the judicial officer has necessarily to be strict, that the public has a right to demand virtually irreproachable conduct from anyone performing a judicial function.
Judicial Officers Being Made Scapegoats And Penalized By Inconvenient Transfers And Otherwise: SC
Desh Raj v/s Balkishan that the mandatory time-line for filing written statement is not applicable to non-commercial suits. In non-commercial suits, the time-line for written statement is directory and not mandatory, the courts have the discretion to condone delay in filing of written statement in non-commercial suits.
M/S Granules India Ltd. Vs UOI State, as a litigant, cannot behave as a private litigant, and it has solemn and constitutional duty to assist the court in dispensation of justice.
To exercise one's own fundamental right to protest peacefully does not give anyone the unfettered right to block road under any circumstances thereby causing maximum inconvenience to others.
Today, you have numerous traffic laws as well as cases of traffic violations. People know about safe driving yet they end up defying the safety guidelines. It could be anything like driving while talking on the phone, hit and run incidents, or driving under the influence of alcohol.
The legal processes are uncertain. Also, there are times when justice gets denied, and the legal outcomes get delayed. Hence, nobody wants to see themselves or their loved one end up in jail.
Arun Kumar Gupta v/s Jharkhand that judicial officer's integrity must be of a higher order and even a single aberration is not permitted. The law pertaining to the vital subject of compulsory retirement of judicial officers have thus been summed up in this noteworthy judgment.
Online Contracts or Digital Agreements are contracts created and signed over the internet. Also known as e-contracts or electronic contracts, these contracts are a more convenient and faster way of creating and signing contracts for individuals, institutions and corporate.
Re: Problems And Miseries Of Migrant Labourers has asked Maharashtra to be more vigilant and make concerted effort in identifying and sending stranded migrant workers to their native places.
Gerald Lynn Bostock v/s Clayton County, Georgia that employees cannot be fired from the jobs merely because of their transgender and homosexual identity.
This article compares two cases with similar facts, yet different outcomes and examines the reasons for the same. It revolves around consideration and validation of contracts.
Odisha Vikas Parishad vs Union Of India while modifying the absolute stay on conducting the Jagannath Rath Yatra at Puri has allowed it observing the strict restrictions and regulations of the Centre and the State Government.
Soni Beniwal v/s Uttarakhand even if there is a bar on certain matters to be taken as PIL, there is always discretion available with the Court to do so in exercise of its inherent powers.
Indian Contract Act was commenced in the year 1872 and since then, several deductions and additions have happened to the same. The following piece of work discusses about the concept of offer under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Top