In a packed Court No. 3 at the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court, a rather charged atmosphere prevailed on Thursday morning as a petition questioning Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s right to hold office came up for final orders. The bench of Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Manjive Shukla eventually dismissed the petition, holding that once the Supreme Court stayed Gandhi’s conviction, the disqualification under election law no longer operated Ashok Pandey.
Background
The petition was filed by advocate Ashok Pandey, appearing in person, seeking a writ of quo warranto-a judicial demand that a public office-holder show the authority under which they occupy the post. Pandey argued that Gandhi’s 2023 conviction by a Surat court, which imposed a two-year sentence for criminal defamation, triggered an automatic disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act (RP Act).
Read also: Supreme Court Flags Serious Procedural Flaws, Sends Bihar Murder Case Back for Fresh Section 313
According to him, the stay granted later by the Supreme Court did not explicitly authorize Gandhi to contest elections, unlike the Court’s order in the Afzal Ansari case, where such permission was clearly stated. “If both are treated equally, why did the Supreme Court need to say so in Ansari’s case at all?” he pressed before the bench.
He also claimed that Gandhi’s victory from Rae Bareli in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls and his subsequent elevation as Leader of the Opposition amounted to holding a constitutional office “without authority of law.”
Court’s Observations
The bench, however, was not persuaded. Referring repeatedly to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Lily Thomas v. Union of India, the judges noted that the legal consequence of a stay of conviction is very different from a stay of sentence. When conviction is stayed, the Court said, the “mark of a convict” cannot legally operate until the appeal is decided.
Read also: Supreme Court Restores Seniority Rights of PSEB Employee After Nearly Five-Decade Legal Battle
The judges explained this in simple terms: a person is disqualified only when the conviction is operative. If a higher court puts that conviction on pause, the disqualification pauses too.
“The moment a higher court stays a conviction, the anathema of conviction goes out of the window,” the bench observed, adding that the person, though not acquitted, “cannot be stated to be a convicted person” during that interim period.
They also addressed the petitioner’s reliance on B.R. Kapur, clarifying that the quoted paragraph dealt with a situation where only the sentence was stayed-not the conviction. “We are not at consensus ad idem with the argument raised,” the bench said, gently indicating that the precedent did not support the petitioner’s reading.
Read also: Supreme Court Clarifies GST Exemption on Hostels, Says Sub-Leasing for Residential Use Still Counts
On the Afzal Ansari comparison, the Court stated that the Supreme Court’s specific wording there did not imply that permission is mandatory every time. Rather, the broader principle remains settled: a stayed conviction neutralizes Section 8(3).
Decision
Concluding that the legal position was “categorically settled” by the Supreme Court and that no substantial question of law arose, the bench dismissed the writ petition in full. The request for a certificate to appeal to the Supreme Court under Article 134-A was also rejected.
Read also: Supreme Court Upholds Heavy Interest Award in BPL–Morgan Securities Arbitration, Rejects Claims
With this, the Court closed the matter, reaffirming that Rahul Gandhi continues as a validly elected Member of Parliament and Leader of the Opposition, as his conviction remains stayed by the Supreme Court.
Case Title: Ashok Pandey vs. Sri Rahul Gandhi & Others
Case No.: Writ-C No. 11593 of 2025
Case Type: Writ Petition (Quo Warranto under Article 226)
Decision Date: 4 December 2025
