Background
Before 2013, sitting MPs and MLAs enjoyed the benefit of not being disqualified from the Parliament for 3 months after they were convicted of any crime which led to the exploitation of the given legal provision. The law for the same is enshrined in the Representation of People Act,1951.
Section 8 of this Act clearly specifies offences. The conviction of an MP or MLA of any of them led to the disqualification from the Parliament or the State Legislative Assembly, as the case may be. The Section 8(4) created a matter of controversy. It states the provision of granting a 3-month period of time before disqualification in case of a convicted sitting member of Parliament or any State Legislative Assembly. It also holds that in case of an appeal to reverse the conviction, the MP/MLA cannot be disqualified until and unless the Appellate Court has delivered its Judgment.
Due to this, Adv. Lily Thomas along with others, filed a public interest litigation to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, seeking to declare Section 8(4) of the act as Ultra Vires.
The Contention of Both Parties
Petitioners :
The primary argument of the Petitioners was that this section manifests a distinction between the disqualification of a person contending to be chosen as an MP/MLA and of a person who is already an MP/MLA. This poses a clear contradiction to the very introductory lines of both Articles 102 and 191, respectively, by giving an additional 3-month time period to sitting members of the Parliament or Legislative Assemblies of a state. Both the Articles state that the disqualifications should be the same to stop someone from sitting in the house and to stop someone from being chosen to sit in the house.
To heighten the arguments supported and delivered by them, they cited the judgement of Election Commission v. Saka Venkata Rao (1953). Thus, they argued about the constitutional invalidity of the controversial section by advocating that it is in clear contradiction with Article 102 and Article 191 of the Indian Constitution, bringing the rationale behind the section being implemented still in the contemporary paradigm into question.
The Petitioners further stated that if Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act is repealed, the convicted sitting MP will not be deadlocked with no recourse options. They mentioned they could still revoke the order of conviction as per Section 389(1) of the Criminal Code of Procedure,1973, through an appellate court. They brought to the attention of the Court the case of Navjot Singh Siddhu v. The State of Punjab (2007) to present a testament to their argument.
Respondents :
The Respondents argued before the Hon’ble Supreme Court that by providing an additional 3 month period before disqualification post-conviction to a sitting member, the act in no way provides a distinction on the ‘grounds of disqualification’ and, hence, claimed the argument of the Petitioners to be invalid. Explaining the rationality of the section, it further told the Court that the sole purpose of this section was to protect the strength of the Legislature’s respective houses and not to create an unfair advantage for the sitting members. It clarified further by explaining how the immediate disqualification will affect the strength of the Parliament and the State Legislative Assemblies. In the matter of a coalition government or a government with not a great majority, these immediate disqualifications will bring about an unstable change in the Political Dynamics of the country, which essentially will deem the nation as a country in a state of political turmoil.
Additionally, the Respondents also said that the Appellate Courts certainly do not possess the necessary jurisdiction to overrule or put a hold on the conviction under Section 389(1) of the CrPC,1973. Producing no precedents, they simply stated that Courts cannot exercise their jurisdiction under the above-mentioned section.
The Judgement
The Supreme Court held no agreement with the argument of the Respondents that without Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, there would not be any recourse option for the convicted MPs/MLAs. It went on to cite the Judgment of the case of Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang and Ors. (1953), which clearly held that the Appellate Jurisdiction of the Court extended to Section 389(1) of the CrPC, 1973 as well.
Finally, the Court held that Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act
is Ultra Vires.
Comments