instant disqualification of leaders

 The judgment in the Lily Thomas case, which invalidated / अमान्‍य ठहराना  Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act, can play havoc with the careers of sitting legislators

 2019 defamation case Rahul Gandhi 

1  Rahul Gandhi of the Congress party was disqualified on being convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment in a 2019 defamation case. 

2 The disqualification was instant

because of the Supreme Court of India’s judgment in Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013). 

3 Through this judgment, the Court invalidated Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act 1951, which had allowed a three-month period within which to appeal.

 

Disqualification was not to take effect during this period; when the appeal is admitted, disqualification would depend on the final outcome of the appeal.

Thus, under the legal provision cited, there was no instant disqualification of sitting members of the legislature. 

But after the Court struck down this provision

1 of the Representation of People Act 1951, according to the opinion of some experts, 

2 a sitting legislator is disqualified the moment the court orders conviction and sentence under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act. 

3 The top court said that Article 102(1) does not create any difference between the sitting member and a candidate so far as disqualification is concerned.

 4 It held that Parliament has no power to grant exemption to sitting members for three months and thus struck down Section 8(4) as ultra vires the Constitution.

A case with no sound legal basis

So now, only Section 8(3) 

1 remains in the Act which deals with disqualification of persons convicted and sentenced to two years imprisonment. 

2 This section simply says that a person who is convicted

of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years shall be disqualified from the date of conviction. 

3 It does not say that such a person stands disqualified from the date of conviction. So, there is no ground indeed to conclude that the disqualification takes place the moment the court pronounces a person guilty. 

4 The only condition is that such a person shall be disqualified from the date of conviction. 

5 o, it appears that the act of the instant disqualification of Mr. Gandhi did not have a sound legal basis;

 6 particularly so when we consider the words “He shall be disqualified”, which could only mean that some authority has to officially declare him disqualified.

authority that/who can declare a sitting legislator disqualified 

1 could be the President of India exercising this power under Article 103. 

2 Although the Supreme Court did not accept this proposition in Lily Thomas, in Consumer Education & Research ... vs Union Of India & Ors (2009),

 3 a three-judge Bench held that a declaration by the President, under Article 103, that the sitting member has incurred disqualification is necessary.

4 Thus, the scheme of Section 8(3) seems to be that when a sitting member is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more, he shall be disqualified with effect from the date of conviction.

 4 Further, it is the President who shall disqualify him under Article 103.

5  The Secretariat of the House -  to which the member belongs has no recognisable authority to declare that a member stands disqualified as soon as he is convicted by a court of law.

Disqualification and sentence quantum

whether the stay of only sentence can lift the disqualification or whether stay of conviction is necessary 

1 A question of legal importance that arose in the context of the disqualification of Mr. Gandhi was whether the stay of only sentence can lift the disqualification or whether stay of conviction is necessary. 

2 In the 1980s and 1990s, some of the High Courts (Allahabad High Court in Sachindra Nath Tripathi vs Doodhnath, 1987 and the Himachal High Court in Vikram Anand vs Rakesh Singha, 1994) had held the view 

that disqualification remains intact / सही-सलामत  on staying the sentence. 

3 But the Madras High Court took a different view in the Jayalalithaa case (2001). 

यह माना गया कि "जिस क्षण सजा निलंबित कर दी जाती है[,] दोषसिद्धि को निलंबित माना जाना चाहिए या 

अन्यथा संहिता के निर्माताओं ने दोषसिद्धि पर रोक लगाने या दोषसिद्धि के निलंबन का भी प्रावधान करने का ध्यान रखा होता।''

 but in present case - 

1 However, in Rahul Gandhi’s case, though the Supreme Court stayed the conviction,

 2 it did not express any opinion on the question of whether a stay of conviction is also necessary or on suspending the disqualification.

3 It must be remembered that disqualification arises only when the sentence is imprisonment for two or more years. 

4 As the Court observed in its recent order in Rahul Gandhi’s case, if the period of imprisonment was less by one day the disqualification would not have occurred. 

5 It would mean that disqualification is directly relatable to the quantum / time of sentence and not conviction. But this is a point the lawmakers and the judiciary will have to deal with.

2013 case 

1  Instant disqualification on conviction and sentence will upset their entire legislative career

2 without giving them breathing space because the courts in general have a very dilatory / slow  system in dealing with appeals, revisions and such.

 3 conviction of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Ram Shankar Katheria  

But the case of the Agra court staying the conviction of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) MP Ram Shankar Katheria within 24 hours of conviction in a criminal case, thus saving his House membership is one of the rarest exceptions.

4 It is heartening that a court like the Agra session court exists in our country. 

 instant disqualification needs to be addressed 

1 But the issue of instant disqualification needs to be addressed urgently as it may affect the career of legislators. 

2 The Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) on the ground that Parliament has no power

•  to provide for a special dispensation for convicted legislators
•  because Article 102(1) does not permit such differentiation between them and the candidates. 

लेकिन जहां तक ​​भेदभाव की बात है, संविधान वास्तव में अनुच्छेद 103 के तहत इसकी अनुमति देता है, जिसमें प्रावधान है कि मौजूदा विधायकों के मामले में, अनुच्छेद 102(1) के तहत अयोग्यता का प्रश्न राष्ट्रपति द्वारा तय किया जाएगा।

 शायद अनुच्छेद 102 में एक उपयुक्त संशोधन किया जा सकता है ताकि संसद अमान्य धारा 8(4) को बहाल कर सके।

कोई गुणात्मक परिवर्तन नहीं

वास्तव में, लिली थॉमस के फैसले से राजनेताओं की आपराधिक प्रवृत्ति में कोई प्रत्यक्ष गुणात्मक परिवर्तन नहीं हुआ है।   

किसी विशेष समय में शक्तिशाली सत्तारूढ़ व्यवस्था से संबंधित राजनेता कुछ घंटों के भीतर सजा पर रोक लगवाने में सक्षम हो सकते हैं, इस प्रकार वे खुद को तत्काल अयोग्यता से बचा सकते हैं।

 लेकिन अन्य लोगों को मानहानि के गैर-संज्ञेय और जमानती मामले में दोषसिद्धि पर रोक लगाने के लिए श्री गांधी की तरह चार महीने तक इंतजार करना होगा और उच्चतम न्यायालय के हस्तक्षेप के लिए इंतजार करना होगा। 

यह और अन्य मामले दर्शाते हैं कि धारा 8(4) को बहाल करने और संवैधानिक रूप से संरक्षित करने की आवश्यकता है ताकि भारत के विधायकों के करियर को अदालती आदेशों के कारण होने वाले अचानक आघात से बचाया जा सके, जो सर्वोच्च न्यायालय के शब्दों में, "बिना किसी आवेदन के" दिए जाते हैं। मन की"।