HC dashes Bibi’s hopes to contest

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, January 16

In a setback for the SAD just before the Assembly elections, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today brought to naught Bibi Jagir Kaur’s hopes for re-contesting the elections. It dismissed her plea for stay on conviction in her daughter Harpreet Kaur’s death case.

The trial court had acquitted Bibi of murder offence while convicting her of abduction and forcible abortion of her daughter Harpreet Kaur. She is not competent to contest due to bar in Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act.

Taking up her plea, Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal and Justice Ramendra Jain asserted: “In our opinion no irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the applicant-appellant.

“Rather, if a public figure becomes entitled to hold public office and to continue to do official acts until he or she is judicially absolved from findings against him/her by reason of suspension of conviction, it would adversely affect public interest and even irreparably. Consequently, it is not considered to be a fit case for suspending the conviction of the applicant-appellant”.

The Bench added a person holding public office, like the applicant, was entrusted with powers to be exercised in public interest. The person holds the office in trust. “Involvement in such a serious offence of a person holding public office amounts to the breach of trust”.

The Bench also made it clear that her case was distinguishable from Navjot Singh Sidhu and Sucha Singh Langah’s case. The Bench asserted great emphasis was laid on Sidhu’s case. He, along with co-accused, was tried for murder and other charges before Sidhu was acquitted by the Sessions Court. But the High Court allowed an appeal before convicting and sentencing him to three years rigorous imprisonment for an offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. He was released on bail after a special leave petition was filed.

Immediately after the HC judgment, he resigned from the Lok Sabha “to maintain probity and moral values in public life”. In his case, the incident took place in December, 1988, much before he entered public life in 2004, when he was elected MP.

“He had not taken any advantage of his position as MP in the commission of the crime. It was also observed though he was not required to resign, he adopted a moral path by resigning from his seat.

“Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances, the apex court suspended the order of conviction. The position in the present case being distinguishable, no benefit is available to the applicant-appellant from the decision,” the Bench observed. It added the legal and factual position in the present case was different from Langah’s case.