Rahul Gandhi is not the first one to be disqualified under provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1951. Why is this brouhaha then? Even prominent legal luminaries are arguing that time should be given for appeal before disqualification sets in. Why were the same arguments not pushed forward when others were disqualified?
Rasheed Masood of the Congress was disqualified from his membership of the Rajya Sabha in 2013 after getting convicted for four years in the case of cheating, forgery and corruption in a medical seats scam. More than a dozen parliamentarians or members of the state legislative assemblies have been disqualified under the Representation of Peoples’ Act. Some of them include Lalu Prasad Yadav (fodder scam), J Jayalalithaa (corruption) and Azam Khan in a hate speech.
The rule is simple: Any elected member gets disqualified with immediate effect if convicted for more than two years by any court of law. Getting a stay on the sentence is easier than getting a stay on the conviction. Also, the person has to be exonerated fast to enable him to contest. This means complete overturn of the judgement. Fast-track court can do it, but doubt would remain whether Rahul Gandhi would be able to contest the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
Rahul Gandhi is to be blamed for the present situation. Those who are arguing that he should have been given time to appeal should be reminded that it was he who opposed this very idea. He had torn the bill that Dr Manmohan Singh wanted to bring to overturn the Supreme Court judgement on immediate disqualification after conviction. Rahul Gandhi had at that time insulted his own Prime Minister and claimed credit for being tough against convicted legislators.
Let us get the context first: The apex court in the famous Lily Thomas vs Union of India case decided on 10 July 2013 that any member of Parliament or state legislative assembly or state legislative council would lose membership of the house with immediate effect if convicted of a crime for a minimum of two years’ imprisonment. This changed the earlier position where the convicted person was given time to appeal until he had exhausted all judicial remedies. The conviction was considered final only after it was ratified by the Supreme Court. Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act that allowed appeal was termed unconstitutional.
This created consternation in the political circle. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government led by Dr Manmohan Singh sought to bring legislation to undermine the apex court’s order which had already rejected the review petition. Then Law Minister Kapil Sibal brought an amendment bill in the Rajya Sabha on 30 August 2013. The government also sought to bring an ordinance to subvert the likely conviction of Lalu Prasad in the fodder scam.
Rahul Gandhi took a high moral ground and tore the ordinance in public insulting the Prime Minister and his senior cabinet colleague who had argued in favour of this ordinance. Dr Manmohan Singh was in Washington to meet then US President Barack Obama. Rahul described the ordinance as “complete nonsense”. “I’ll tell you what my opinion on the ordinance is. It’s complete nonsense. It should be torn up and thrown away. That is my personal opinion”, he said. The ordinance was eventually withdrawn. Rahul was hailed as a savior and the media projected the arrival of a new leader.
Who knew that day that the same Act would come to haunt Rahul Gandhi ten years later! Now, he cannot even take a position contrary to what he had taken in 2013. More than a dozen legislators have already been disqualified. The Supreme Court cannot sit over reviewing its own verdict merely because it is Rahul Gandhi this time. Everyone is equal before the law.
Rather than trying to put the blame on the political adversary, Rahul would do well to shed arrogance and fight his battle in Courts. Courts consider sympathetically when one jumps the gun in the heat of political arguments but offers apology. Showing repentance helps. But the pride of Gandhi family is so intense that Rahul Gandhi cannot go wrong. He would insist what he said was the gospel and he had no qualms about what he said. Then the courts would also go strictly by merit and not give the benefit of the doubt.
Hurling abuses due to political failures, whether it is for criticising the RSS, the lies on Rafale deal or abusing the Prime Minister at the personal level, are not acceptable in civilised democracy. The court’s conviction is a gentle reminder that you are not above the law. If you swear by the constitution, respect the ethos of India’s holy book.
The writer is the convener of the media relations department of the BJP and represents the party as a spokesperson on TV debates. He has authored the book ‘Narendra Modi: The Game Changer’. The views expressed are personal.
Read all the Latest Opinions here
Comments
0 comment