<p>Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has been disqualified as an MP of the Lok Sabha as a result of his indictment by a Surat court in a criminal defamation case related to the ‘Modi’ surname. </p>.<p>Let’s take a look at what the <a href="https://adrindia.org/sites/default/files/FAQ%20on%20Miss%20Lily%20Thomas%20vs.%20UOI%20judgment.pdf" target="_blank">Supreme Court</a> said in relation to disqualification of a sitting MP/MLA once they are convicted. </p>.<p>In its landmark judgement in the Lily Thomas case, the top court had ruled in 2013 that if an incumbent MP or MLA is declared a convict, they would lose their seat immediately, thereby making it vacant. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/rahul-gandhi-gets-2-year-jail-in-modi-surname-remark-case-1202701.html" target="_blank">Rahul Gandhi gets 2-year jail in 'Modi surname' remark case</a></strong></p>.<p><strong>What made the top court take this decision? </strong></p>.<p>The apex court declared section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act as invalid. When this section was in vogue, a convicted MP or MLA could continue after filing an appeal against the conviction within 90 days. But now, it is not the same. Hence the Rahul Gandhi disqualification. </p>.<p>It’s to be noted that only those convictions which come under sections 8(1), 8(2), 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, (RPA) that will lead to immediate disqualification. </p>.<p>The top court was of the view that if there are certain conditions that forbid an individual from contesting elections, the same should also apply to an incumbent elected representative from continuing in office. It also held that the Parliament doesn’t have the power to make different laws from members and non-members. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/national-politics/rahul-gandhi-disqualified-as-lok-sabha-mp-after-conviction-1203066.html" target="_blank">Rahul Gandhi disqualified as Lok Sabha MP after conviction</a></strong></p>.<p><strong>The Constitutional view</strong></p>.<p>While Article 102(1) specifies the conditions for disqualification of incumbent and aspiring candidates to both Houses of the Parliament, Article 191(1) talks about the disqualification of sitting members and aspiring candidates to the state Assembly or Legislative Councils. </p>.<p>The top court struck down section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act that had provided a special privilege to incumbent members. </p>.<p>With this judgement, political parties will think twice before giving tickets to aspirants with criminal antecedents. It has gone a long way in ensuring that a convicted MP/MLA will lose his seat, thereby sending a message that political cleanliness is non-negotiable.</p>
<p>Congress leader Rahul Gandhi has been disqualified as an MP of the Lok Sabha as a result of his indictment by a Surat court in a criminal defamation case related to the ‘Modi’ surname. </p>.<p>Let’s take a look at what the <a href="https://adrindia.org/sites/default/files/FAQ%20on%20Miss%20Lily%20Thomas%20vs.%20UOI%20judgment.pdf" target="_blank">Supreme Court</a> said in relation to disqualification of a sitting MP/MLA once they are convicted. </p>.<p>In its landmark judgement in the Lily Thomas case, the top court had ruled in 2013 that if an incumbent MP or MLA is declared a convict, they would lose their seat immediately, thereby making it vacant. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/rahul-gandhi-gets-2-year-jail-in-modi-surname-remark-case-1202701.html" target="_blank">Rahul Gandhi gets 2-year jail in 'Modi surname' remark case</a></strong></p>.<p><strong>What made the top court take this decision? </strong></p>.<p>The apex court declared section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act as invalid. When this section was in vogue, a convicted MP or MLA could continue after filing an appeal against the conviction within 90 days. But now, it is not the same. Hence the Rahul Gandhi disqualification. </p>.<p>It’s to be noted that only those convictions which come under sections 8(1), 8(2), 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, (RPA) that will lead to immediate disqualification. </p>.<p>The top court was of the view that if there are certain conditions that forbid an individual from contesting elections, the same should also apply to an incumbent elected representative from continuing in office. It also held that the Parliament doesn’t have the power to make different laws from members and non-members. </p>.<p><strong>Also Read: <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/national/national-politics/rahul-gandhi-disqualified-as-lok-sabha-mp-after-conviction-1203066.html" target="_blank">Rahul Gandhi disqualified as Lok Sabha MP after conviction</a></strong></p>.<p><strong>The Constitutional view</strong></p>.<p>While Article 102(1) specifies the conditions for disqualification of incumbent and aspiring candidates to both Houses of the Parliament, Article 191(1) talks about the disqualification of sitting members and aspiring candidates to the state Assembly or Legislative Councils. </p>.<p>The top court struck down section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act that had provided a special privilege to incumbent members. </p>.<p>With this judgement, political parties will think twice before giving tickets to aspirants with criminal antecedents. It has gone a long way in ensuring that a convicted MP/MLA will lose his seat, thereby sending a message that political cleanliness is non-negotiable.</p>