Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | Ruling on convicted MPs raises queries-R Balaji

Ruling on convicted MPs raises queries-R Balaji

Share this article Share this article
published Published on Jul 12, 2013   modified Modified on Jul 12, 2013
-The Telegraph


New Delhi: Yesterday's Supreme Court judgment debarring convicted lawmakers from continuing in their Houses has raised a tricky question: what happens if and when a convicted and thus disqualified legislator secures an acquittal from a higher court?

Consider this hypothetical scenario:

Some 160 candidates who face criminal charges are elected to the Lok Sabha in next year's elections. (Some 162 among the current Lok Sabha's members face criminal charges, so the example isn't implausible).

Say, 35 of them get convicted within six months and are disqualified. Suppose 25 of these disqualified MPs are from the ruling dispensation, ABC Alliance, which was surviving on a razor-thin majority of 12.

Since the government loses 25 votes - 15 more than the Opposition XYZ Alliance loses - it forfeits its majority of 12 and is now short of the halfway mark by 3. Eventually, the government is ousted in a trust vote.

Now, consider a higher court later acquits 15 of the convicts from the ABC Alliance on appeal. The alliance feels it has morally regained its majority. So, what happens now? The judgment is silent.

What complicates the problem is that, according to lawyers, once a lawmaker is disqualified, there are no provisions to reinstate him or her.

"The law is very clear on this aspect. Once a person is disqualified, the person cannot expect any reinstatement even if there is an acquittal," said former additional solicitor-general Amarendra Sharan, an expert in election laws.

"It is not that you're a government employee or working in some company where you can be reinstated after being removed from the post. A House member has to go out once he is disqualified."

If a disqualified member cannot be reinstated after acquittal, his or her best hope would be to contest and win the by-election. But what if the by-election has already been held (and perhaps won by a rival party's candidate)?

A reading of the judgment suggests the apex court has left the door open for a delayed by-election.

The judgment says the President (in the case of MPs) or the governor (in the case of MLAs) will decide whether vacancies created by conviction-triggered disqualifications would be filled straightaway through a by-election.

In other words, though the seat becomes vacant, the President or the governor may stop it from being filled to allow the disqualified member to challenge the conviction and, if acquitted, to contest afresh.

"The filling of the seat which falls vacant, however, may await the decision of the President or the governor under Articles 103 and 192, respectively, of the Constitution and if the President or the governor takes a view that the member has not become subject to any of the disqualifications mentioned in clause (1) of Articles 102 and 191 respectively of the Constitution, it has to be held that the seat of the member so held not to be disqualified (under these clauses) did not become vacant on the date on which the member was alleged to have been subject to the disqualification (upon conviction)," Meenakshi Arora, counsel for the Election Commission, said quoting from the apex court ruling.

An MP is disqualified under Article 102(1) on grounds such as not being a citizen of India, having an unsound mind or holding an office of profit.

However, yesterday's judgment does not say how long a bypoll may be delayed. The matter is left to the discretion of the President or governor.

One way for the government to secure an answer to such queries could be to send a presidential reference to the court.

Law minister Kapil Sibal refused comment on the court order, saying he would give his views only after going through the judgment.

Sharan raised another point: if the Supreme Court feels a convict should not continue in a House, it should ensure a fast disposal rate for criminal cases in the country.

"We have the highest number of over 3 crore cases pending in the country," he said.

Stressing the same point, advocate K.V. Dhananjay said: "Disqualification of members because of conviction will be a rare thing. Convictions in our country are very rare for politicians."

During the arguments, the Centre had contended that disqualification should not happen automatically after conviction but should await a decision by the President or the governor, but the apex court rejected the contention.

Arora, the Election Commission counsel, said the Supreme Court had rightly taken the view that once a person was convicted, he or she ceased to be a member.

"We have to see that it is the collective right of society to cleanse the system of criminal elements. Individual rights have to give way to society's larger interests and rights. Moreover, the right to vote or contest is only a statutory right and not a constitutional right," she said.


The Telegraph, 12 July, 2013, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130712/jsp/nation/story_17108981.jsp#.Ud_Kqazcjco


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close