Plea in SC towards computerized disqualification of lawmakers upon conviction, two-year sentence

By PTI

NEW DELHI: A plea has been filed within the Supreme Court difficult the “automatic disqualification” of lawmakers upon their conviction and being sentenced to a jail time period for 2 years or extra in accordance with part 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act.

The plea, filed by a Kerala-based social activist, mentioned the instant purpose for approaching the apex courtroom was a latest improvement associated to Congress chief Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification as a member of Parliament from the Wayanad Lok Sabha constituency after he was convicted by a courtroom in Gujarat’s Surat in a 2019 felony defamation case.

The petitioner, Aabha Muralidharan, has sought a declaration that the automated disqualification underneath part 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is extremely vires the Constitution for being “arbitrary” and “illegal.”

The petition has claimed that an computerized disqualification of individuals’s representatives of elected legislative our bodies restrains them from “freely discharging their duties cast upon them by the voters of their respective constituencies, which is against the principles of democracy.”

“The present scenario provides a blanket disqualification, irrespective of the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offences, allegedly against the concerned member, and provides for an ‘automatic’ disqualification, which is against the principles of natural justice since various convictions are reversed at the appellate stage and under such circumstances, the valuable time of a member, who is discharging his duties towards the public at large, shall be rendered futile,” the plea, filed by means of advocate Deepak Prakash, mentioned.

Regarding Gandhi’s disqualification, the plea mentioned the conviction has been challenged, however in mild of the operations of the current disqualification guidelines underneath the 1951 Act, the stage of attraction, the character of the offences, the gravity of the offences and the impression of the identical over the society and the nation aren’t being thought-about, and in a blanket method, an computerized disqualification has been ordered.

It mentioned members of Parliament are the voice of the individuals they usually uphold the proper to freedom of speech and expression of tens of millions of their supporters who’ve elected them.

“All that the petitioner and the petition wish to establish is that the right under Article 19(1)(a) enjoyed by a member of Parliament is an extension of the voice of millions of his supporters,” it mentioned.

The plea mentioned the availability ignores the primary schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on “classification of offences,” which may be categorised underneath two headings — cognisable and non-cognisable and bailable and non-bailable.

The plea mentioned the grounds for disqualification must be particular with the character of offences as specified underneath the CrPC and never in a “blanket form”, as is at the moment in drive in accordance with part 8(3) of the 1951 Act.

It mentioned the apex courtroom had, within the case of Lily Thomas versus Union of India, declared as extremely vires the Constitution part 8(4) of the 1951 Act, which mentioned the disqualification of a lawmaker on conviction shall not take impact till three months have elapsed from the date or if inside that interval an attraction or utility for revision is introduced in respect of the conviction or sentence till that attraction or utility is disposed of by a courtroom.

The plea alleged that the Lily Thomas verdict is being “blatantly misused for wreaking personal vengeance by political parties.”

The petition mentioned if the offence of defamation underneath the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which attracts a most punishment of two years in jail, is just not eliminated singularly from the sweeping impact of the Lily Thomas judgment, it should have a “chilling effect on the right of representation of the citizens”.

The plea has arrayed the Centre, the Election Commission, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat and the Lok Sabha Secretariat as occasion respondents.

It has sought a declaration that there is no such thing as a computerized disqualification underneath part 8(3) of the 1951 Act and in instances of computerized disqualification underneath the availability, the identical be declared extremely vires the Constitution.

It has additionally sought a declaration that the mandate underneath part 499 (defamation) of the IPC or every other offence prescribing a most punishment of two years in jail won’t mechanically disqualify any incumbent member of a legislative physique because it “violates the freedom of speech and expression of an elected common man’s representative”.

Former Congress chief Gandhi was disqualified from the Lok Sabha on Friday, a day after he was convicted by the Surat courtroom.

Announcing his disqualification, the Lok Sabha Secretariat in a notification mentioned it might be efficient from March 23, the day of Gandhi’s conviction.

“Consequent upon his conviction by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat…Rahul Gandhi, Member of Lok Sabha representing the Wayanad Parliamentary Constituency of Kerala, stands disqualified from the membership of Lok Sabha from the date of his conviction i.e.23 March 2023,” the notification learn.

The Surat courtroom sentenced Gandhi to 2 years in jail on Thursday in a defamation case filed on a grievance from Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Purnesh Modi.

NEW DELHI: A plea has been filed within the Supreme Court difficult the “automatic disqualification” of lawmakers upon their conviction and being sentenced to a jail time period for 2 years or extra in accordance with part 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act.

The plea, filed by a Kerala-based social activist, mentioned the instant purpose for approaching the apex courtroom was a latest improvement associated to Congress chief Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification as a member of Parliament from the Wayanad Lok Sabha constituency after he was convicted by a courtroom in Gujarat’s Surat in a 2019 felony defamation case.

The petitioner, Aabha Muralidharan, has sought a declaration that the automated disqualification underneath part 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is extremely vires the Constitution for being “arbitrary” and “illegal.”googletag.cmd.push(perform() googletag.show(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); );

The petition has claimed that an computerized disqualification of individuals’s representatives of elected legislative our bodies restrains them from “freely discharging their duties cast upon them by the voters of their respective constituencies, which is against the principles of democracy.”

“The present scenario provides a blanket disqualification, irrespective of the nature, gravity and seriousness of the offences, allegedly against the concerned member, and provides for an ‘automatic’ disqualification, which is against the principles of natural justice since various convictions are reversed at the appellate stage and under such circumstances, the valuable time of a member, who is discharging his duties towards the public at large, shall be rendered futile,” the plea, filed by means of advocate Deepak Prakash, mentioned.

Regarding Gandhi’s disqualification, the plea mentioned the conviction has been challenged, however in mild of the operations of the current disqualification guidelines underneath the 1951 Act, the stage of attraction, the character of the offences, the gravity of the offences and the impression of the identical over the society and the nation aren’t being thought-about, and in a blanket method, an computerized disqualification has been ordered.

It mentioned members of Parliament are the voice of the individuals they usually uphold the proper to freedom of speech and expression of tens of millions of their supporters who’ve elected them.

“All that the petitioner and the petition wish to establish is that the right under Article 19(1)(a) enjoyed by a member of Parliament is an extension of the voice of millions of his supporters,” it mentioned.

The plea mentioned the availability ignores the primary schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) on “classification of offences,” which may be categorised underneath two headings — cognisable and non-cognisable and bailable and non-bailable.

The plea mentioned the grounds for disqualification must be particular with the character of offences as specified underneath the CrPC and never in a “blanket form”, as is at the moment in drive in accordance with part 8(3) of the 1951 Act.

It mentioned the apex courtroom had, within the case of Lily Thomas versus Union of India, declared as extremely vires the Constitution part 8(4) of the 1951 Act, which mentioned the disqualification of a lawmaker on conviction shall not take impact till three months have elapsed from the date or if inside that interval an attraction or utility for revision is introduced in respect of the conviction or sentence till that attraction or utility is disposed of by a courtroom.

The plea alleged that the Lily Thomas verdict is being “blatantly misused for wreaking personal vengeance by political parties.”

The petition mentioned if the offence of defamation underneath the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which attracts a most punishment of two years in jail, is just not eliminated singularly from the sweeping impact of the Lily Thomas judgment, it should have a “chilling effect on the right of representation of the citizens”.

The plea has arrayed the Centre, the Election Commission, the Rajya Sabha Secretariat and the Lok Sabha Secretariat as occasion respondents.

It has sought a declaration that there is no such thing as a computerized disqualification underneath part 8(3) of the 1951 Act and in instances of computerized disqualification underneath the availability, the identical be declared extremely vires the Constitution.

It has additionally sought a declaration that the mandate underneath part 499 (defamation) of the IPC or every other offence prescribing a most punishment of two years in jail won’t mechanically disqualify any incumbent member of a legislative physique because it “violates the freedom of speech and expression of an elected common man’s representative”.

Former Congress chief Gandhi was disqualified from the Lok Sabha on Friday, a day after he was convicted by the Surat courtroom.

Announcing his disqualification, the Lok Sabha Secretariat in a notification mentioned it might be efficient from March 23, the day of Gandhi’s conviction.

“Consequent upon his conviction by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat…Rahul Gandhi, Member of Lok Sabha representing the Wayanad Parliamentary Constituency of Kerala, stands disqualified from the membership of Lok Sabha from the date of his conviction i.e.23 March 2023,” the notification learn.

The Surat courtroom sentenced Gandhi to 2 years in jail on Thursday in a defamation case filed on a grievance from Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MLA Purnesh Modi.