The Supreme Court has dismissed a petition that aimed to challenge the validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This section states that individuals who are convicted of a crime and sentenced to a minimum of two years in prison will be disqualified as a Member of Parliament or Member of a Legislative Assembly. The plea was filed by activist Aabha Muralidharan from the Wayanad constituency of Rahul Gandhi, who was recently disqualified as an MP after being convicted of defamation.
The bench that heard the matter comprised Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice JB Pardiwala. The Supreme Court ultimately rejected the petition, meaning that Section 8(3) will continue to be enforced. This decision also means that the court will only hear cases related to this section from individuals who have been directly affected by it, as opposed to hearing broader challenges to its legality.
During the hearing of a petition challenging the disqualification of MPs upon conviction, the bench, headed by Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, declared at the outset that the petitioner had no legal standing in the case. The CJI asked the petitioner how they were affected and advised them to return when they had been disqualified due to conviction or withdraw the petition. He stated that the court would only hear from the aggrieved party.
The petitioner’s counsel responded by referring to a previous PIL filed by Advocate Lily Thomas, in which the Supreme Court had nullified Section 8(4) that allowed convicted legislators to retain their membership while their appeal was ongoing. However, this argument failed to convince the bench, and the petitioner ultimately chose to withdraw the case.
Consequently, the petitioner chose to withdraw the case, resulting in its dismissal.
The petition had been filed by Advocate Deepak Prakash and drawn by Advocate Sriram Parakkat. It argued that Section 8(3) of the 1951 Act, which automatically disqualifies MPs convicted of a crime carrying a prison sentence of at least two years, was contradictory to several other sections of the Act, including Sections 8(1), 8A, 9, 9A, 10, 10A, and 11.
The plea contended that the provision amounted to a blanket disqualification, regardless of the severity or nature of the offense, which violated the principles of natural justice since many convictions are reversed on appeal. The petitioner also raised concerns about the valuable time of MPs being wasted when they were discharging their duties towards the public at large.
Furthermore, the petition argued that the current disqualification rules under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, did not consider crucial factors such as the stage of appeal, the nature and severity of the offense, and its impact on society and the country. It claimed that an automatic disqualification had been imposed on Rahul Gandhi in a blanket manner without taking these factors into account.
The plea emphasized that an MP’s right to free speech, protected by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, was an extension of the voice of millions of their supporters. It sought a declaration that Section 8(3) of the Act did not result in automatic disqualification and that any such disqualification under the provision be deemed unconstitutional. The petition also requested a declaration that Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, or any offense with a maximum jail sentence of two years, should not result in the automatic disqualification of any incumbent member of a legislative body since it infringed on their freedom of speech and expression as a representative of the common people.
Recent Events:
A petition has been filed in response to Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification from the Lok Sabha. This happened after a court in Surat, Gujarat found him guilty of criminal defamation and sentenced him to two years in prison. The petition argues that certain factors, such as the severity of the crime, the accused’s role, and their moral character, should be considered when deciding whether to disqualify a member of parliament under Chapter III of the 1951 Act. The petition also notes that the purpose of the Act is to disqualify elected officials who have committed serious offenses and have been convicted by a court of law.
Written by- Sohini Chakraborty intern under legal vidhiya
0 Comments