Backed by all political parties, the Centre moved the Supreme Court seeking review by a five-judge constitution bench of its ruling directing immediate disqualification of MPs and MLAs on being sentenced to more than two years in a criminal case.
The Centre sought open court hearing of its petition, which also sought review of the two-judge bench’s July 10 judgment which had delivered a second blow to politicians by barring them from contesting elections while in police or judicial custody.
The government had earlier planned to seek to amend the Constitution to nullify the SC’s verdict. The parliamentary affairs ministry in its 36-page review petition, annexing it with the court’s two judgments running into 61 pages, said the question of disqualification of MPs and MLAs upon conviction was not open for reconsideration by a two-judge bench since a five-judge bench had in 2005 decided the issues in favour of elected representatives, taking them as a separate class in the K Prabhakaran vs J Jayarajan case. Prior to the July 10 ruling, which sent shock waves among political parties, an MP or MLA could continue in Parliament or assembly unaffected by the judicial verdict imposing more than two year sentence on him in a criminal case if he appealed against it before a higher court within three months.
Major political parties barring the BSP have opposed any restriction on them in announcing freebies in election manifestos, claiming that this was their prerogative. The Election Commission had convened a meeting of various national and regional political parties to seek their views on the issue of freebies offered by them in poll manifestos and framing of guidelines thereof. SC’s July 10 order was a landmark
Existing laws bar arrested persons and undertrial prisoners from casting vote in an election but there is no bar for a person in police or judicial custody to file nomination and contest election.
The SC’s July 10 judgment took away an arrested person’s right to contest elections, making political parties wonder whether it would give a handle for misuse by the ruling dispensation, which could easily debar important opposition leaders from the poll arena by merely arresting them on the eve of filing of nominations-.Though the UPA government and political parties had considered the option of constitutional amendment to nullify the July 10 judgment, the Centre decided to opt for a review petition to serve twin purposes – it could be more expeditious and not give an impression of executive overreach of Supreme Court’s judgment.
The review petition, drafted by two additional solicitors general, Paras Kuhad and Siddharth Luthra, and vetted by attorney general G E Vahanvati, argued that the two-judge bench ought to have referred the two questions – disqualification of elected representatives on convictions with more than two years sentence and barring arrested persons from contesting – to a five-judge bench since a similar dispensation had already settled the important constitutional questions agreeing with Parliament’s view and existing laws.
It raised a preliminary objection – a two-judge bench could not have taken up the questions for hearing as they involved testing validity of important constitutional provisions which under Article 145(3) had to be heard by a minimum of five judges of the Supreme Court.
It said Parliament, in its wisdom, had allowed MPs and MLAs to retain their seats on filing of appeal against their conviction within three months mainly because if their convictions were set aside later by a higher court, it could give rise to an anomalous situation where the seat would still remain vacant because there was no provision to retrospectively fill up the seat vacated seat by a disqualified member. Referring to Section 8(4) of the Repesentation of People’s Act, which the apex court on July 10 nullified in its judgment, the Centre said the order rendered MPs and MLAs remedy-less since the disqualification would not be wiped out from the date of conviction.
In K Prabhakaran’s case, the apex court had taken note of compulsions of ruling coalitions surviving on razor thin majority and said that disqualification of members from the date of conviction without providing them the benefit of Section 8(4) of RP Act would have a deleterious effect on the functioning of government.
The Centre sought open court hearing of its petition, which also sought review of the two-judge bench’s July 10 judgment which had delivered a second blow to politicians by barring them from contesting elections while in police or judicial custody.
The government had earlier planned to seek to amend the Constitution to nullify the SC’s verdict. The parliamentary affairs ministry in its 36-page review petition, annexing it with the court’s two judgments running into 61 pages, said the question of disqualification of MPs and MLAs upon conviction was not open for reconsideration by a two-judge bench since a five-judge bench had in 2005 decided the issues in favour of elected representatives, taking them as a separate class in the K Prabhakaran vs J Jayarajan case. Prior to the July 10 ruling, which sent shock waves among political parties, an MP or MLA could continue in Parliament or assembly unaffected by the judicial verdict imposing more than two year sentence on him in a criminal case if he appealed against it before a higher court within three months.
Major political parties barring the BSP have opposed any restriction on them in announcing freebies in election manifestos, claiming that this was their prerogative. The Election Commission had convened a meeting of various national and regional political parties to seek their views on the issue of freebies offered by them in poll manifestos and framing of guidelines thereof. SC’s July 10 order was a landmark
Existing laws bar arrested persons and undertrial prisoners from casting vote in an election but there is no bar for a person in police or judicial custody to file nomination and contest election.
The SC’s July 10 judgment took away an arrested person’s right to contest elections, making political parties wonder whether it would give a handle for misuse by the ruling dispensation, which could easily debar important opposition leaders from the poll arena by merely arresting them on the eve of filing of nominations-.Though the UPA government and political parties had considered the option of constitutional amendment to nullify the July 10 judgment, the Centre decided to opt for a review petition to serve twin purposes – it could be more expeditious and not give an impression of executive overreach of Supreme Court’s judgment.
The review petition, drafted by two additional solicitors general, Paras Kuhad and Siddharth Luthra, and vetted by attorney general G E Vahanvati, argued that the two-judge bench ought to have referred the two questions – disqualification of elected representatives on convictions with more than two years sentence and barring arrested persons from contesting – to a five-judge bench since a similar dispensation had already settled the important constitutional questions agreeing with Parliament’s view and existing laws.
It raised a preliminary objection – a two-judge bench could not have taken up the questions for hearing as they involved testing validity of important constitutional provisions which under Article 145(3) had to be heard by a minimum of five judges of the Supreme Court.
It said Parliament, in its wisdom, had allowed MPs and MLAs to retain their seats on filing of appeal against their conviction within three months mainly because if their convictions were set aside later by a higher court, it could give rise to an anomalous situation where the seat would still remain vacant because there was no provision to retrospectively fill up the seat vacated seat by a disqualified member. Referring to Section 8(4) of the Repesentation of People’s Act, which the apex court on July 10 nullified in its judgment, the Centre said the order rendered MPs and MLAs remedy-less since the disqualification would not be wiped out from the date of conviction.
In K Prabhakaran’s case, the apex court had taken note of compulsions of ruling coalitions surviving on razor thin majority and said that disqualification of members from the date of conviction without providing them the benefit of Section 8(4) of RP Act would have a deleterious effect on the functioning of government.
No comments:
Post a Comment