Supreme Court refuses to review plea on disqualification of convicted legislators

NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a government plea to review its landmark July 10 ruling that barred a member of parliament or legislative assembly from holding on to office if convicted for an offence carrying a jail term of at least two years. The court, however, agreed to take a second look at another controversial ruling that disallowed an arrested or jailed person from contesting elections.

The government had approached the top court with pleas for a review of the rulings while it introduced an amendment bill in the Rajya Sabha to negate both the judgments, which aimed at curbing criminalisation of politics.

Hearing the pleas, a two-judge bench of the court blamed Parliament for creating confusion on these issues by enacting badly drafted laws, and then accusing the judiciary when it tried to interpret the very same laws.

“Legislatures created the confusion, but they don’t want to admit it. If we interpret the language strictly, we are blamed,” the bench of justices AK Patnaik and SJ Mukhopadhyay said. “Where is the error apparent on the face of the record? It is a well-considered judgment; you should accept it. We are glad that Parliament has accepted it.”

The bill seeking to carry out changes in the Representation of the People Act was unanimously passed by the Rajya Sabha on August 27. The bill has a clause that says a sitting legislator can only continue in the house if he gets his conviction and sentence stayed from a court.

“That’s what we said,” the bench said on Wednesday.

The July 10 ruling had struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, which allowed members of parliament and legislative assemblies to hold on to their seats for three months after their conviction to give them time to file appeal in a higher court. It also allowed the members to retain their seats till the time their appeal was decided.

The court, however, condescendingly agreed to give a second look to its ruling barring an arrested or jailed person from contesting polls. The bench shrugged off arguments by Additional Solicitor General L Nageswara Rao that the right to vote and the right to contest were inherently different rights.

“When a person is arrested or jailed, he does not lose his place in the electoral list, nor does he cease to be an elector. Only his voting rights are temporarily suspended,” Rao told the court. “Since he is still an elector, he can contest polls.”

The bench rejected this argument, saying if an elector is a criminal and can’t be allowed to vote, how can he be allowed to contest?

The bench, however, issued notices to Jan Chaukidar, a non-government organisation on whose plea it had barred those arrested and jailed from contesting.