By D N Singh
Rahul Gandhi disqualification as MP has turned to be a whirl wind as several legal interpretations have come out to suggest that, his disqualification was deemed to be premature in view of the remission of 30 days for appeal instead two years.
While getting a breather for a month for appeal, the Lok Sabha was quick to notify his disqualification despite the Court suspended the sentence of two years down to 30 days. But he was, with an alacrity, disqualified under section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (RPA).
Be it Rahul or anybody in his place may question the justification of the disqualification at that juncture.
If the action against Rahul under the Prevention of the Corruption Act, 1988
Under Section 8 of the RPA, which deals with disqualification due to conviction, two separate kinds of offences are envisaged. The first kind is where mere conviction is enough to attract disqualification, such as any offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Legal experts have raised questions as whether such disqualification was justified or not.
If Rahul was sentenced less than two years that automatically shows there was no ground for disqualification.
Keeping in mind that Lakshadweep MP PP Mohammed Faizal’s disqualification was revoked by the Lok Sabha after his conviction for murder was stayed by the Kerala High Court, we argue that the same principle should apply to Gandhi’s case well.
