Context: 

Recently the Supreme Court stayed Rahul Gandhi’s conviction in a defamation case by a Gujarat court in which he has been sentenced to two years in prison.

Defamation:

• Harming the Reputation: It is the act of communicating false statements about a person that harms the reputation of that person.
• Intentional damage to the Reputation: It is any false and unprivileged statement published or spoken deliberately, intentionally, knowingly with the intention to damage someone’s reputation.
• Essential conditions for Defamation:
  • The statement must be published i.e., can be both in oral and written forms publication.
  • The statement must damage the reputation of the person.

Reasons for Disqualification:

• Disqualification under Articles 102(1) and 191(1):
  • Criterias: Grounds of Office of Profit, Mental Health, Insolvency, and Citizenship
    • Office of Profit: Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) are prohibited from holding offices of profit under the central or state governments. 
      • Purpose: To prevent conflicts of interest and ensure their impartiality. If a legislator holds an office that is considered to be of profit, they may be disqualified. 
      • Example: In 2006, Jaya Bachchan, a member of the Rajya Sabha, was disqualified for holding an office of profit as she was also the Chairperson of the Uttar Pradesh Film Development Corporation.
    • Mental Health or Insolvency: If a person is declared to be of unsound mind or insolvent, they may be disqualified from being a legislator. 
      • Example: If an MLA is declared insolvent, they might be disqualified from holding their seat in the State Legislature. 
    • Citizenship: A person must be a citizen of India to be eligible for membership in Parliament or State Legislature. 
      • Holding citizenship of another country can lead to disqualification. 
      • Example: If an MP is found to be holding citizenship of another country alongside Indian citizenship, they may face disqualification. 
      • Disqualification under the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution:
• Grounds of Defection: 
  • The Tenth Schedule: It is  also known as the Anti-Defection Law, prohibits elected legislators from defecting to another party after being elected. 
  • Provision: If they voluntarily give up their party membership or vote against the party’s directions, they may face disqualification. 
  • Example: In 2019, 17 Karnataka MLAs were disqualified by the Speaker of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly for resigning from their parties and thereby causing the downfall of the ruling coalition government. 
• Disqualification under the Representation of The People Act (RPA), 1951 (Conviction in Criminal Cases): 
  • Duration of Disqualification: The RPA, 1951, provides for the disqualification of a person convicted of certain criminal offenses and sentenced to imprisonment for two or more years. 
    • The disqualification continues for the duration of the sentence, as well as an additional period after release. 
  • Example: As mentioned earlier, in the case of Rahul Gandhi, he was disqualified after being found guilty of criminal defamation and sentenced to two years in jail, which triggered his disqualification under this criterion. 

Real Life Examples of Disqualification:

• These examples illustrate the disqualification criteria and their real-life applications in the Indian context. Disqualification safeguards the integrity of the legislative bodies and ensures that elected representatives uphold certain standards of conduct and eligibility. 

Clarification on the law on Disqualification of Elected Representatives:

The case of Lok Prahari vs. Union of India:

• A Landmark Judgment: It was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of India that clarified the law on disqualification of elected representatives. 
• Challenge to Section-8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: The case arose out of a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 8-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provides for the disqualification of a person convicted of an offense punishable with imprisonment for two years or more. 
• Demand of Petitioners: The petitioners in the case argued that Section 8-A was unconstitutional because it did not take into account the fact that a person who is convicted of an offense may have their conviction stayed by the appellate court. 
  • They argued that if a person’s conviction is stayed, they should not be disqualified from holding office, as they have not been finally convicted of the offense. 
• Judgment by the Supreme Court: The Supreme Court agreed with the petitioners and struck down Section 8-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 
  • The Court held that the disqualification will not operate from the date of the stay of conviction by the appellate court.

Essence: This means that a person who is convicted of an offense but has their conviction stayed by the appellate court will not be disqualified from holding office until their conviction is finally upheld by the appellate court. 

A Journey about Rahul Gandhi’s Case:

A Plethora of Supreme Court Judgments: 

• Right to Reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system.
• Reason needs to be Provided: Judges should give reasons for their decisions to indicate that they have applied their minds. 
  • The affected party should know why the decision has gone against him.

Related Judgments:

• SN Mukherjee vs. Union of India: The object underlying the rules of natural justice is to prevent miscarriage of justice and secure fair play in action. 
• Sant Lal Gupta and Ors. vs. Modern Co-operative Group Housing Society Ltd: A court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion.
• Krishna Swami vs. Union of India: Reasons demonstrate how the mind of the maker was activated and actuated and their rational nexus and synthesis with the facts considered and the conclusions reached.

Conclusion: The court observed that an unreasonable order, especially when it targets the personal liberty of an individual, would be arbitrary, violate equality before the law and amount to unfair procedure offending Article 21 of the Constitution. There is a need for just and accountable judgments.

News Source: The Indian Express