Allahabad High Court Dismisses Advocate’s Quo Warranto Plea Against Leader Of Opposition Rahul Gandhi’s Raebareli Lok Sabha Election
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Allahabad High Court Division Bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla today dismissed a petition filed by an advocate in person seeking a writ of quo warranto challenging the authority of Leader of Opposition Rahul Gandhi to hold the Lok Sabha seat from Raebareli, contending that his conviction in a criminal defamation case over his “why do all thieves have Modi surname” remark rendered him disqualified from being chosen as a Member of Parliament, holding instead that the Supreme Court’s stay of his conviction removed the disqualification and declining to certify the case for appeal.
The petition was filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by advocate Ashok Pandey appearing in person, seeking a writ of quo warranto questioning the authority of Rahul Gandhi to hold office as Member of Lok Sabha from the Raebareli constituency and as Leader of Opposition. The petitioner also sought directions to the Speaker to recover amounts allegedly received without valid membership and to the Election Commission to declare another candidate elected from the constituency.
The petition was founded on Rahul Gandhi’s conviction by a Surat trial court for criminal defamation over his “why all thieves have Modi surname” remark, for which he was sentenced to two years’ simple imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by the Gujarat High Court, but the Supreme Court subsequently stayed the order of conviction.
Placing reliance on Article 102 of the Constitution read with Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the petitioner contended that the disqualification to be chosen as, and to be, a Member of Parliament continued despite the stay of conviction, rendering Gandhi’s nomination, election and functioning in office invalid. The Election Commission and other respondents opposed the petition, asserting that the stay of conviction removed the statutory disqualification.
The Court recorded that the petitioner relied on the argument that a stay of conviction did not enable contesting elections and that “merely the stay conviction entitles a person, who is otherwise disqualified, to contest the election(s)” would render the Supreme Court’s explicit directions in a separate case redundant. He submitted that the respondent “was disqualified to be chosen as MP and so his nomination paper was wrongly accepted” and that the respondent was “usurping a public office created by the Constitution without any authority of law.”
The Court noted the respondents’ reliance on Lily Thomas, specifically the passage stating that “where the conviction itself is stayed, the effect is that the conviction will not be operative from the date of stay” and that “the disqualification arising out of conviction ceased to operate after the stay of conviction.”
The Bench then examined Article 102 and Section 8(3), observing that the statutory bar applies only when a person “convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years” continues to remain under an operative conviction. It stated that “once an order of conviction is stayed, the bar under Section 8(3)… would not apply.” The Court recorded that the “indelible mark of a convict cannot be assigned to such a person till the appeal is decided” and distinguished between staying the execution of a sentence and staying the conviction itself. It observed that a stay of execution does not erase the disqualification, but “in the latter case, since the conviction has been stayed, the bar would not apply.”
Addressing reliance on B.R. Kapur, the Court noted the petitioner’s emphasis on the passage that “the conviction and the sentence it carries operate against the accused in all their rigour until set aside in appeal.” However, the Bench stated that the passage referred to circumstances where execution of sentence was stayed but conviction remained operative. It observed that “the moment a higher court stays a conviction, the anathema of conviction goes out of the window.” The Bench recorded that only after the appeal is decided would it be known whether the person remains convicted or is acquitted.
The Court concluded by recording that the issue was settled law per Lily Thomas, and no substantial question of law arose for certification of appeal.
The Court directed that “In light of the same, we are of the view that the present writ petition is devoid of merit. The petitioner has also sought from us a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134-A of the Constitution of India. On consideration of the said prayer, we are of the view that no substantial question of law arises in the present matter, as the matter has been categorically settled by the Supreme Court and is no longer res integra, as discussed above. Accordingly, the said prayer is also rejected.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Respondents: Shri Surya Bhan Pandey, Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri Anand Dwivedi, Shri O.P. Srivastava, Senior Advocate, assisted by Ms. Anupriya Srivastava
Case Title: Ashok Pandey v. Rahul Gandhi and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: AHC-LKO:80596-DB
Case Number: Writ-C No. 11593 of 2025
Bench: Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla
