Author: Dishita Singh, Amity University Mumbai
TO THE POINT:
The case matter initiated by the Advocate Lily Thomas and NGO Lok Prahari when observed how the Section 8(4) of Representation of the People Act,1951 was protecting the sitting legislature, they were convicted but instead of disqualifications they were having their official powers and making laws in law governing body. These MLA’s and MPs were convicted for their acts which in easier sentence they were listed as criminals and there were at least 24% to 25% MP, they had criminal cases pending against them and still the number was increasing in years. The reason behind challenging it was why the law is different to them than other, and essentially when the cover the most important part of law-making body and convicted politicians can also contest the elections on the ground that pending appeals against their accusations in the appellate court. Although the petition initially filed was rejected but then it was considered after nine years.
USE OF LEGAL JARGON:
The Representation of People’s Act 1951 is an administrative procedure laid for democratic process and regulate the political parties which includes the Conduct of Elections, Qualification and Disqualification, Registration of Political Parties, Preventing Electoral Offenses, Resolution of Election Disputes. The RPA Act 1951 sections involved:
8(1), 8(2), 8(3) listed out the about legislators acted and convicted for certain offences shall be disqualified from their position. But the exception lies within 8(4) provides that MP or MLA convicted can take effect until 3 months have elapsed from thar date or they can file an appeal within period. The provision allowed convicted MP and MLA to continue their position while the appeal decision pending.
Hence the 8(4) was ultra vires, did not meet the Article 14 of the constitution, stating the law is different communities, reasonable bias, which is totally unacceptable and it infringes Article 14, that states equality and non-arbitrary act.
Various Provision of Indian Constitution discussed in the matter:
Article 102(1)(e) – which states disqualifications of Member of Parliament and empowers the parliament to add additional grounds for disqualification.
Article 190(3)(a)- which states that there is a vacant seat when MLA is subjected to disqualification.
Article 191(e)- which empowers the Parliament to lay down additional grounds for disqualification under any law made by Parliament.
Article 193 – Fine Penalty of 500rs per day to the person aware of they are disqualified.
The sections and articles mentioned here, in this particularly refers to, when any of MLA and MP convicted and under the constitutional article clearly mentioned during the convicted at very exact moment the disqualification implied and seat is vacant and state makes further arrangement for that. Then exceptionally Section 8(4) that gives a shield to these convicted politicians to hold officer under the cover of appeal and still continue to execute in their position. This clearly infringes the Article 14 and other articles mentioned. The law should be same for everyone and there should be purity in political system and stability in governance. They are also given the opportunity conduct the elections too otherwise a candidate is clearly struck out, so same as to be followed for sitting legislatures.
THE PROOFS:
Arguments by both the side followed as the petitioner side did give the reasons as given above, their main concern was the convicted politician serving the country upholding the offices and given exception to this which infringes the Article 101,190 that clearly refers about the vacant seat upon the disqualification and still not followed leading to differentiate between sitting legislators and other people. The Respondent argued present by Senior Advocate in favour of government Article 102(1)(e),191(1)(e) clearly give the power to Parliament make laws regarding disqualifications and hence it does cogent reason to do when it comes to candidate and sitting legislators and Section 8(4) does give exception to politicians because they are too fraud and misinterpreted cases filed against them, if disqualifications happens to be proven vague at last then it will be their loss if the disqualified at early stage.
The verdict by court states that Parliament might have the power under Article 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) that empowers them to make disqualification laws as seems to be fit but they cannot change effect of constitutional provisions related to it. Where this provision clearly states when member becomes disqualified the seat shall be vacant, which shows vacancy is automatic and immediate, no scope of delay.
Lastly, it struck down the section 8(4) of Representation of People’s Act 1951 stating that examined constitutional provisions, procedures and powers of Parliament concluding that final result or outcome in section 8(4) is not valid law clearing the fact if disqualifications effective under 8(1), (2), (3) then it has to be an immediate effect, no delay and no protection available to sitting members of Parliament or legislative assembly. They also removed the provisions regarding appeal and continuation of office until final appeal decision confirmed.
ABSTRACT
This case clearly upholding constitutional value and rights by striking down of section 8(4) made the law-making system clear and transparent ensuring the equality between people and officials in government and limitation on power of parliament letting not override constitutional provision. It did become the one of the political issues mainly because judgment did hit directly to politicians especially MPs and MLA’S. Now at present any member convicted losses their seat immediately which impacts their political career and party strength. The problem which was faced by India criminalization of Politics where individual having criminal records contest election and win, this struck down of section has broken their protective shield of convicted politicians to continue.
CASE LAWS:
1) Manoj Narula Vs Union of India (2014 9 SCC 1): The case establishes when bench directed that person barred to be appointed as minister holding the constitutional value and rulings of Lily Thomas case.
2) Public Interest Foundation Vs Union of India (2019 3 SCC 224): The petition was filed by the foundation to stop the criminalization of politics even though landmark rulings of case Lily Thomas. Stating that candidates having serious criminal charges and in political parties requested election commission to reserved their symbols because they party has taken criminal candidate in which court stated that it doesn’t have the power to amend rules of disqualification, this only lays with Parliament and hence urged the parliament to pass a new law preventing people into political party having serious criminal charges.
CONCLUSION:
It clearly states that the case, Judiciary upholds the constitutional provision, and law is same for everyone. The striking down of that section has made some changes at present largely affecting the politics clean and clear, which outlines that law making body should be fair and transparent upholding the equality to all.
FAQ:
1) Did any debate about the section getting unconstitutional is there?
There was call for restoration of it leading that immediate disqualification can bring political instability and obviously intentionally wrong targeting of opposition leaders.
2) After striking down that section what changed?
Changes made bring the equal treatment destroying their protective shield also clean politics it helps to prevent members convicted for serious crimes and still a good mark on people that Judiciary uphold the constitutional value and it’s for people.
3) Is there concern if the case been vague and a member getting disqualified would be unjustified?
It does concern fact that mostly targets the ruling party might use this for their own profit charging false charges or trials and if wrongfully convicted by court or lastly charges vague it might destroy the political career of member. There should be a depth structural procedure to tackle out this challenge.
