On July 10 the Supreme Court has struck down the right of the members of Parliament & State Assemblies to stay in their seats after being convicted by a court for at least 2 years of imprisonment. That means, the moment a member is convicted, he is supposed to lose his seat. But the present system is, a reprieve of 3 months is given to a convicted member in which period he appeals in the higher court and bring in a stay order. Persons like Sahabuddin, Pappu Yadav, Sibu Soren etc. have availed this privilege after being convicted for murder. This is a statutory judgement since a law breaker should not be a lawmaker. However, Article 112 of the constitution empowers Parliament to define the disqualification norms. It also empowers the House to decide how and when this disqualification should take effect. In the past, a three judge bench of the supreme court had uphold the section 8(4) of the representation of the people’s Act which allows the convicted member to go for an appeal while retaining his seat. Surprisingly, the 3 judge bench has been overturned by the present 2 judge bench. In the past, the Parliament itself had disqualified 6 members for taking bribe on camera in the cash for querry case. While ethically the ruling given by the Supreme Court recently is correct, it can raise certain practical problems which needs redressal. If a convicted member loses his seat and a by election is held and new member occupies that position but in the appeal in the higher court the previously convicted member gets aquitted, then what will happen to the by election elected member? The government has filed a review petition in the Supreme Court challenging the ruling on the ground that it takes away Parliament’s right to pronounce on disqualification of members. It argues that if the government of the day survivies on razor thin majority disqualification of members would have a deleterious effect on its functioning. That means, because of this disqualified member the government may fall. The government argues, the purpose of carrying out a saving in section 8 (4) of the Act is not a confer as advantage on sitting members of parliament or of a state legislature but to protect the House/Legislature. They have argued this case to be heard to a 5 member bench. May be instead of automatic disqualification of a convicted member, his right to participate in a discussion or vote could be suspended till his appeal against a conviction is dealt with.
Posted on: Wed, 04 Sep 2013 06:56:25 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015