New Delhi: On the heels of Rahul Gandhi's ousting from Parliament, following his conviction in a defamation case, a PhD scholar has moved the Supreme Court, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which was used to revoke Rahul Gandhi's Lok Sabha membership.
Aabha Muralidharan, who is also a social activist, questioned the Act which provides for the automatic disqualification of a legislator from the Parliament or State assembly upon conviction in a criminal case.
The provision of Section 8(3) is ultra vires of the Constitution, as it limits the free speech of elected Members of Parliament (MPs) or Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs), and hinders their ability to fulfil the responsibilities entrusted to them by the voters of their respective constituencies, he said.
The petition states that Section 8(3) contradicts sub-section (1) of Section 8, Section 8A, 9, 9A, 10, 10A, and 11 of the 1951 Act.
Murulidharan argued in the petition that factors such as the nature and gravity of the offence, the accused's role, moral turpitude, and other relevant considerations must be taken into account while considering disqualification under Chapter III of the 1951 Act.
He further highlighted that the legislative intent was to disqualify elected members who are convicted by the courts of heinous offences and are therefore liable to be disqualified.