A stay on a conviction under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act allows the convicted individual to continue holding office and contest elections until the appeal is resolved.

JUDGMENT :

MANJIVE SHUKLA, J.

1. Heard Shri Ashok Pandey, the petitioner appearing in person, Shri Surya Bhan Pandey, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Anand Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Opposite Party No. 2, that is Union of India and Shri O.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Anupriya Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 3, that is Election Commission of India.

2. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the writ petitioner appearing in person is seeking a writ of quo warranto against a Member of Parliament. The prayers in the writ petition have been delineated below:-

"(I.) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Quo Warranto thereby asking the Respondent No. 1 Sri Rahul Gandhi as to under what authority of law, he is holding the office of Member of Lok Sabha from Raibareli in spite of the fact that because of conviction and sentence of two years recorded by Surat court, he was disqualified to be chosen as member of Parliament in view of the provision contained in article 102 r/w section 8 (3) of R.P. Act 1951. (II.)To direct the speaker of Lok Sabha to recover the penalty from Sri Rahul Gandhi as provided in the constitution as he participated in the proceedings of Lok Sabha without being a valid member of it.

(III.) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Election Commission of Bharat to declare Sri Dinesh Kumar Singh as the elected member of Lok Sabha from Raibareli Lok Sabha seat as the returned candidate Sri Rahul Gandhi was disqualified to be chosen as Member of Lok Sabha on the date of the election impugned."

3. The petitioner appearing in person has submitted that Mr. Rahul Gandhi was convicted by the trial court for an offence punishable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for which there is simple imprisonment of two years or fine or both. This order was subsequently challenged in the higher courts and the Gujarat High Court dismissed the revision petition of Mr. Rahul Gandhi and accordingly rejected the prayer for stay of conviction. When the matter went up before the Supreme Court by way of a Special Leave Petition bearing number S.L.P. (Cri.) No. 8644 of 2023, the Supreme Court passed the following order:-

"1. Leave granted.

2. Heard Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel for the appellant and Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, learned senior counsel for the respondent No. 1, on the question of interim protection.

3. The present appeal challenges the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the revision petition, which was in turn filed challenging the order of the learned Sessions Judge, thereby rejecting the prayer for stay of conviction.

4. The appeal filed by the present appellant challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed by the leaned Trial Judge is pending before the Appellate Court. The arguments advanced by both Dr Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Shri Mahesh Jethmalani, learned senior counsel, touch the merits of the matter. We, therefore, refrain from observing anything about the said arguments, inasmuch as it may adversely affect the rights of either of the parties in the appeal which is pending before the learned Appellate Court.

5. Insofar as grant of stay of conviction is concerned, we have considered certain factors. The sentence for an offence punishable under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short "IPC") is simple imprisonment for two years or fine or both. The learned Trial Judge, in the order passed by him, has awarded the maximum sentence of imprisonment for two years. Except the admonition given to the appellant by this Co