Immediate disqualification of convicted legislators may have consequences: Centre

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, September 22

Immediate disqualification of legislators on conviction in a criminal case could have serious consequences for a government surviving on a razor edge-thin majority, the Centre has told the Supreme Court.

In an affidavit filed before the top court, the government said convicted MPs and MLAs need not be automatically disqualified from Parliament or state legislatures as they still had the right to challenge the verdict before an appellate court.

Such immediate disqualification would reduce the strength of the House and decrease the number of members of the political party to which such a convicted lawmaker belonged, the Centre said. Disqualification of even one member may also have a deleterious effect on the functioning of a government that may be surviving on a razor-thin majority.

The affidavit was filed in response to a PIL filed by Lok Prahari — an NGO — that wanted the court to declare that law did not provide for stay of conviction as in some cases convicted lawmakers continued to contest polls after obtaining stay of their conviction. The Supreme Court had asked the government to clarify why MPs and MLAs convicted by a court should be treated as a "special class".

The Supreme Court had in 2013 ruled that an MP/MLA convicted of any offence attracting a punishment of two years or above would be disqualified immediately. Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act that allowed a convicted MP/MLA to continue in office if he/she appealed the order within three months of their conviction was declared unconstitutional. Thereafter the top court has passed several other verdicts on electoral reforms and it is currently seized of several PILs on the issue.

But the government’s affidavit sought to justify section 8(4) of the Act that protected convicted lawmakers from being disqualified. Under section 8(4), a convicted lawmaker was permitted to continue as a member of the House if he or she challenged the conviction.

The object of the provision wasn't to ensure continuity of a member but to make sure the democratically constituted House didn't get disrupted, the Centre said.

"Also, if a member gets acquitted by the appellate court, then there is no provision of restitution qua the Parliament. It also affects the right of an electorate who votes for a certain candidate keeping in mind that the said candidate shares the same views and ideology as the electorate," the affidavit stated.

Seeking dismissal of the petition, the Centre said: “There is no violation of any of the fundamental rights or legal rights of the petitioner and the petition is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner seeks relief which is not based on any fundamental and constitutional right”.