The Supreme Court has ordered that convicted lawmakers could be removed from their posts forthwith, in a far-reaching judgement hailed by many as path-breaking but questioned by some as impractical and unjust.
The apex court has scrapped a provision in the Representation of the People Act that offered convicted politicians a three month window to appeal convictions and keep their seats while those appeals were pending, a decision that could strike at the very heart of the country’s political system where nearly a third of lawmakers at the Centre and states face criminal cases.
Under the omnibus order, MPs or MLAs could henceforth be disqualified even if they are slapped with minor fines and jail terms in offences such as insulting the national flag or defiling a place of worship.
A Bench comprising Justices AK Patnaik and SJ Mukhopadhaya, however, said in the ruling that lawmakers who have already been convicted by courts would not incur disqualification if they had appeals against such convictions pending. It would only apply to cases hereafter.
“…disqualification (in future) takes place from the date of conviction,” the Bench said.
The political class, which is being viewed with suspicion by many following the outbreak of several financial scandals, reacted to the ruling with caution.
While the Congress party said it appreciated steps to bring accountability, Opposition BJP said it backed every measure aimed at cleansing the political system.
A parade of former election commissioners hailed the apex court’s verdict.
Wednesday’s ruling came on three public interest litigations (two by lawyer Lily Thomas and one SN Shukla and another by non-governmental organisation Lok Prahari). Thomas’ case was argued by constitutional lawyer Fali S Nariman.
Nariman, in his arguments, said that Parliament cannot by law make separate disqualification criteria for those seeking to become members of legislatures and sitting members, a contention upheld by the Bench.
The court left a ray of hope for convicted lawmakers, allowing them to move a higher court to obtain relief. The three PILs had argued that allowing those with criminal convictions to continue as MPs and MLAs was hurting India’s political system. But the government had stoutly defended the exception in the law for lawmakers, arguing that in most cases, higher courts often struck down convictions by lower judiciary.
The government had also argued that convictions and the ensuing disqualifications could alter the size of the legislature and reduce parties’ strength, triggering political instability in scenarios where the ruling side had a thin majority.
No comments:
Post a Comment