Rahul Gandhi disqualification: Former Union Law Minister bats for the UPA ordinance Congress leader opposed

Ashwani Kumar says, “The Ordinance sought to be introduced by the UPA government was intended to introduce a provision for appeal to address the harsh operation of the law … oppressive and disproportionate punishment is counter-productive and does not serve the cause of justice”

Rahul Gandhi at the Parliament on Friday. (Express Photo)

Former Union Law Minister Ashwani Kumar on Friday said a Surat court’s decision to convict Congress MP Rahul Gandhi in a defamation case raised “a larger question about the harshness and disproportionality of the consequences of a two-year sentence upon conviction” and called for a “review of the existing law”. The Lok Sabha on Friday disqualified Gandhi based on the court verdict.

Kumar, who served in the Manmohan Singh-led Cabinet from October 2012 to May 2013, questioned the law’s provision to take away a legislator’s right to represent people “upon first conviction without even a single appeal to a higher judicial forum”. He said the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government had introduced an ordinance to address the “harsh operation of the law”. A public chastising on Rahul’s part against the ordinance, including the famous incident of him tearing into the ordinance, made the government roll it back.

The former Law Minister said in a statement:

While the legality of the judgment of a Surat court in the defamation case against Rahul Gandhi will be challenged, the decision raises a larger question about the harshness and disproportionality of the consequences of a two-year sentence upon conviction.

A spate of disqualifications of members of state Assemblies and Parliament in the recent past has given reason to consider a review of the existing law to provide reasonable opportunity to the member concerned to question the conviction without incurring disqualification as a legislator.

Also Read | Rahul Gandhi disqualification: Lok Sabha Secretariat notification may be in conflict with Representation of People Act

It is time to consider whether a valuable democratic and statutory right to represent people can be taken away upon first conviction without even a single appeal to a higher judicial forum. The Ordinance sought to be introduced by the UPA Government was intended to introduce a provision for appeal to address the harsh operation of the law.

It is well established that oppressive and disproportionate punishment is counter-productive and does not serve the cause of justice. The majesty of law is best secured by its acceptability in the consciousness of the nation.

Story continues below this ad

A progressive evolution of the law demands a purposive legislative and political response to the experience and application of laws. Hopefully, a political consensus can be achieved on the imperatives for such a law.