Supreme Court Upholds Disqualification of Convicted MPs and MLAs

The case of Lok Prahari v. Election Commission of India & Ors. concerns the issue of disqualification of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) who are convicted of criminal offenses under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioners sought to clarify the disqualification process in cases where a conviction is stayed by an appellate court. This case is significant for understanding the interplay between judicial decisions, the power of appellate courts, and the disqualification of elected representatives in India.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Lok Prahari, is a registered society aiming to promote public governance and accountability. It approached the Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, filing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) to address an ongoing issue regarding convicted lawmakers. The petition arose after a sitting MLA from Uttar Pradesh was convicted for offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in 2014, but the conviction was stayed by the appellate court. The question raised was whether the MLA could continue holding office despite the conviction.

Lok Prahari argued that disqualification should automatically occur upon conviction, and any stay on conviction by an appellate court should not invalidate this disqualification. The petitioner sought directions to the Election Commission of India to take immediate action when a conviction occurs, regardless of any stay or appeal, to ensure that the disqualified seat is vacated.

Key Legal Provisions Involved

• Article 102(1)(e) and Article 191(1)(e): These constitutional provisions deal with the disqualification of MPs and MLAs for certain offenses, including those punishable under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: This section disqualifies a person from being elected as an MP or MLA if convicted for certain offenses, including promoting enmity between groups, bribery, undue influence at elections, and offenses related to rape and corruption.
• Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code: This section allows an appellate court to stay the execution of a sentence while an appeal is pending.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner, Lok Prahari, argued that:

• A conviction for a disqualifying offense should automatically result in the disqualification of the concerned MP or MLA, and no stay on the conviction should prevent this disqualification.
• The stay granted by an appellate court on the conviction does not wipe out the disqualification imposed by the conviction. As such, the disqualification should apply immediately from the date of conviction.
• There is no provision in the Constitution or the Representation of the People Act that allows the disqualification to be delayed based on a stay of conviction.

Arguments by the Respondents

The Election Commission of India and the Union Government opposed the petition, arguing that:

• As per Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, disqualification only operates when a conviction is upheld, and a stay on the conviction prevents the disqualification from being operational.
• The Election Commission had already issued instructions to ensure that any order of conviction is brought to the notice of the concerned authorities, but the stay of conviction must be respected until the appeal is decided.
• The court’s decision in the Lily Thomas case had already clarified that a conviction’s disqualification effect is not immediately applicable when stayed by the appellate court.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court considered several key points before arriving at its judgment:

• The Court noted that disqualification under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act is automatic upon conviction. However, when the conviction is stayed, the disqualification is suspended until the appeal is decided.
• The Court referred to the Lily Thomas v. Union of India case (2013), where it had already clarified the effect of a stay on conviction. The Court reaffirmed that a stay on conviction does not revive the membership of an elected representative retroactively.
• The Court emphasized that disqualification is not a punishment, but a legal mechanism to maintain the integrity of legislative bodies by preventing convicted criminals from holding office.

The Court held:

“A conviction which disqualifies a person under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1951, operates to disqualify the person from the date of conviction. If the conviction is stayed, the disqualification is suspended, and the person is not disqualified until the appellate court rules on the matter.”

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The writ petition filed by Lok Prahari was dismissed.
• The disqualification arising from a conviction under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act would not take effect until the conviction is upheld and any stay on conviction is lifted.
• The Election Commission and concerned authorities were directed to continue monitoring disqualifications as per the law, considering the legal stay on conviction during appeals.

The judgment concluded:

“The stay of conviction does not render the disqualification inoperative, but only suspends it. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.”

Conclusion

This case provides clarity on the legal relationship between criminal convictions, stays of conviction, and the disqualification of MPs and MLAs. The Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the principle that a conviction disqualifies an elected representative from holding office, but the operation of that disqualification is suspended if the conviction is stayed by an appellate court. The Court also emphasizes that such stays should not be misused to circumvent the intention of the law, which seeks to prevent convicted criminals from holding legislative office. The judgment is an important step in ensuring the integrity and transparency of legislative bodies in India.

Petitioner Name: Lok Prahari.
Respondent Name: Election Commission of India & Ors..
Judgment By: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.
Place Of Incident: New Delhi.
Judgment Date: 26-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Lok Prahari vs Election Commission Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 26-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in Quashed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category