Nikita Kale,

Topic: opinion on disqualification of Rahul Gandhi as a MP:

As a student of law, I will be looking this from different perspective and not being a voter of particular
political party. And as per the Indian constitutions Art 102 (1) (e) Disqualification for membership Art
102(1) says that (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either
House of Parliament— and on that sub clause (e) says that art 102 (1)(e) if he is so disqualified by or
under any law made by Parliament. And in relation to Rahul Gandhi’s case the law on which basis he
was disqualified was sec: 08 of the Rrepresentations of the People Act, 1951 and on the verdict on his
case which was ongoing in Gujrat state court from 2019 was convicted by the court in Gujarat state for
2019 comments about Prime Minister Narendra Modi's surname at an election rally. And the case on
which basis Rahul Gandhi has disqualified from Lok Sabha here are the some facts in relation to that
case: And the fact on which basis the case was filed against Rahul Gandhi was a calling a ‘Modi’
surname thief is insult to other backward class (OBC) as per the case is concern it is up to person to
person that how he takes that thing as per the Indian constitution Art 21 says that you should not make
any harm to any others dignity by saying anything like that which is feel as an offended speech or
comment. And Defamation is both a criminal (which carries a prison sentence) and a civil offence
(punishable through the award of damages) in India. The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).

Defamation is defined in Section 499, and the punishment is outlined in Section 500. The offence of
defamation is defined as any spoken, written, or visual statement about another person designed to
damage that person’s reputation. The conduct of any person addressing any public issue or expressing
comments on a public performance an example of exceptions to this rule, as well as any imputation of
truth required for the public benefit. Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as follows,
“Whoever, by words either spoken or intended to be read, or by signs or by visible representations,
makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm, or knowing or having
reason to believe that such imputation will harm, the reputation of such person, is said, except in the
cases hereinafter expected, to defame that person.”

Consequently, the fundamental components of defamation are:

• The dissemination of spoken, written, sign, or other visible material.

• With the goal that such an imputation would reduce the person’s opinion.
• Such slander is committed in front of society’s upstanding citizens.

And after reading above Provision of IPC sec 499 on criminal defamation the background and final
verdict of court on this case is also clears that the case itself and verdict is also legal within limitation
of law and as the statement given by Rahul Gandhi was given in public appearance so the role of
Authenticity of that statement was not a question.
And the final verdict on this case was announced by court on march 23 2023 in Surat court and after
that under Sec 08 of Representation of peoples Act 1951 and under the Art 102(1)(e) of Indian
constitution that any member who proved guilty of offence whose punishment is more than 2 years he
can be disqualify from the house it may parliament or state assembly. And as Rahul Gandhi cannot held
the election for 8 years.

Speaker of Lok Sabha on basis of above grounds disqualify Rahul Gandhi on post of MP and as per my
opinion on this case that will be the action taken by Lok Sabha speaker was justifiable the reason behind
that is it’s court verdict on criminal defamation case in which Rahul Gandhi proved guilty with
imprisonment of 2 years. and as the constitution of India said that if any member of any house proved
guilty with any criminal offence, he has to vacant his seat and he can disqualify by that house. And
before 2013 the process of disqualification was not taken place till 3 months from date of verdict to
provide a time period for filling an appeal based on lower courts order and provide a time period to
convicted legislature to file an appeal but in case of Lilly Thomas v. Union of India July 2013 supreme
court held that no waiting period of 3 months for disqualification on convicted legislature will be given.
The action must be taken immediately after the order of the court and after Researching about the
disqualification of any member of parliament or state legislative assembly and after studying the
background of 2019’s Defamation of Rahul Gandhi’s on basis of “Modi” surname and final verdict of
court on this case it is clear that Rahul Gandhi is criminal under defamation case and as per Art 102(1)(e)
of Indian constitution and Sec 08 of Representation of peoples Act 1951 clearly says that if any member
of any house is proved guilty of breaching any law made by parliament who’s punishment is 2 years
then that person can be disqualify from the post of which he was having till final verdict of that case.
And that is why disqualification and Rahul Gandhi as a MP is totally legal and fair and as per the law
and as per the member of legislature Rahul Gandhi must have the knowledge about laws and he should
acted accordingly. In this relation after researching about all facts and laws which deals with this are
absolutely correct lawful and Rahul Gandhi should remain disqualify for certain period of time as to
not following the law itself on which basis he is disqualify and it will set example among other members
that law is supreme and no one else is not more important than law.