Lily Thomas vs Union of India & Ors on 10th July, 2013 (AIR 2013 SC 2662)

Author:- Mamatha A G, a student at CMR University School of Legal Studies

Case Name

Lily Thomas v. UOI

Citation

(2013) 7 SCC 653, AIR 2013 SC 2662

Court

Supreme Court of India

Case Number

Writ Petition (Civil) 90 of 2005

Case Type

Writ Petition (Civil)

Petitioner

Lily Thomas and General Secretary S.N. Shukla

Respondent

Union of India

Bench

2 Judge Bench, 

Justice A.K. Patnaik and 

Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya

Judgement

10th July 2013

INTRODUCTION:

The case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, coupled with Lok Prahari v. Union of India, stands as a landmark legal proceeding in India’s judicial history. Focused on the constitutional validity of Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, this case brought critical issues to the forefront, including the immediate disqualification of elected representatives convicted of serious offenses. The Supreme Court’s ruling not only redefined the disqualification process but also addressed contemporary demands for transparency, accountability, and adherence to democratic principles in the realm of Indian governance.

FACTS OF THE CASE:

• A writ petition was filed under article 32 of the constitution of India as Public Interest Litigation.
• This PIL challenged the Section 8 (4), of the Representation of People Act, 1951 which is ultra-virus to the constitutional provisions.
• This petition was filed to prohibit the entry of a convicted person into the legislative houses and limit criminalization in politics.
• The main argument lay the contention that a convicted person, especially one sentenced to more than two years of imprisonment to continue to hold the membership in the legislative houses was contradiction to the constitutional vision.
• Lily Thomas and NGO Lok Prahari were strong in their vision against the unjust leniency given to the individuals with criminal records to maintain a position in the political arena.
• The petitioners challenge relied on the constitutional provisions enshrined in Article 102 (1) and Article 191 (1) which outlined the disqualification of a member in the Parliament and Legislative Assembly and also pointed the discretionary power vested in the central Government to amend rules concerning the disqualification of members.
• The main point of controversy was that Section 89 (4) stated that if a sitting member was convicted for an offence punishable for more than 2 years imprisonment, if appealed within three months of conviction, they would not be disqualified from holding the membership of the house.
• This petition echoed the hope and aspirations to cleanse the political landscape, where the essence of the constitutional framework faced scrutiny in the quest for a more virtuous political realm.

ISSUES OF THE CASE:

• The central issue was regarding the constitutional validity of Section 8 (4) in the Representation of People Act, 1951
• Whether the provision adequately addresses the prohibition of the convicted individuals from holding membership in legislative houses.
• The key concern is the exercise of discretionary power by the central government in amending rules related to the member disqualification, raising questions about its alignment with constitutional principles.

LAWS/PROVISIONS:

The provisions involved in the case are:

• Representation of people Act 1951

• Section 8 (4) this provision allows a convicted sitting member sentenced over two years, to appeal within three years and if successful can retain the membership in the house without disqualification
• Section 4: Establishes qualifications for membership of the House of the People (Parliament), including the requirement that a candidate must be an “elector.”
• Section 5: Establishes qualifications for membership of a Legislative Assembly of a State, including the requirement that a candidate must be an “elector.”
• Section 62(5): Addresses the right to vote, specifying that a person confined in prison, under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation, cannot vote. The proviso exempts persons subjected to preventive detention.

• Constitution of India

• Article 32: The basis for filing the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) as it grants the right to move the Supreme Court for the enforcement of fundamental rights.
• Article 102(1): Pertains to the disqualifications for membership of the Parliament, likely forming the basis of arguments against the validity of section 8 (4)
• Article 191(1): Pertains to the disqualifications for membership of the Legislative Assembly.
• Discretionary power of the Central Government:
• The case involves a reference to the discretionary power vested in the central government to amend rules concerning the disqualification of members. 

PETITIONER’S ARGUMENTS:

The petitioners present a series of interconnected arguments asserting the violation of constitutional equality principles by Section 8 (4) in the Representation of People Act.

• The petitioners contend that Section 8 (4) in the Representation of People Act contradicts the constitutional requirement of equal disqualifications for sitting and chosen members in Parliament and State Assembly, as stated in Article 191 (1) & Article 102 (1).
• The petitioners argue that the Constitution empowers Parliament to enact laws on member disqualifications, emphasizing the necessity of maintaining equal treatment for both sitting and chosen members, which stresses upon the Parliament’s Authority
• Citing the Supreme Court precedent in Election Commission of India v Saka Venkat Rao (AIR1952 210 SC 1), the petitioners rely on the Court’s assertion that equal disqualifications should apply to individuals standing in an election and continuing as members, providing support for their challenge against the Representation of People Act.
• The petitioners assert that Section 8 (4) violates the constitutional principle of equal treatment by introducing distinctions and deviates from uniform disqualification standards established in Articles 191 and 102.
• Referring to Article 326, the petitioners argue that Parliament’s enactment of the Representation of the People Act, 1950 and 1951, should align with the constitutional basis of adult suffrage without introducing discriminatory criteria, as alleged in the provision.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS:

The respondents were represented by the Assistant Solicitor General, Mr. Siddharth Luthra

• The respondents argue that the constitutionality of Section 8 (4) has already been upheld by a constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in the case of K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan (AIR 2005 SC 688). This precedent serves as a basis for asserting the validity of the contested provision.
• The respondents contend that the legislative basis for Sub-Section 4 of Section 8 is not derived directly from Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) but from Article 246 (12) read with Entry 97 of List 1 of Schedule 7 of the Constitution. This argument aims to establish the constitutional legitimacy and authority for enacting the provision.

JUDGEMENT:

• The Supreme Court, comprising Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhyay, delivered a judgment on July 10, 2013, invalidating Section 8 (4) in the Representation of People Act, 1951.
• The Court agreed with the petitioners, asserting that the Parliament exceeded its powers by legislating Sub-section (4) since it created an unwarranted distinction between disqualification for standing as a candidate and continuing as a member.
• The judgment clarified that sitting members benefiting from Sub-section (4) would not be affected, but if convicted under other sub-sections of Section 8, they would stand disqualified.
• Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) were interpreted by the Court, determining that Parliament has the power to establish a single law for disqualification, whether for a person to be chosen or for a sitting member.
• The Court emphasized that disqualification leads to an automatic vacancy as per Articles 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a), and Parliament cannot defer the date of disqualification to prevent a member’s seat from becoming vacant.
• Articles were seen as imposing limitations on Parliament’s power, and the Court concluded that Section 8(4) creating a distinction between sitting and proposed members is ultra vires to the Constitution.
• In summary, the judgment declared Sub-section (4) of Section 8 ultra vires, citing the violation of constitutional provisions related to disqualification and the automatic vacancy upon disqualification.

ANALYSIS:

• The Supreme Court’s landmark ruling introduces a crucial legal reform by mandating the immediate loss of membership for convicted MPs, MLAs, or MLCs with a minimum two-year imprisonment. This reform enhances the accountability in public office and propagates the need for ethical governance.
• The declaration of Section 8(4) as unconstitutional marks an important step towards ensuring equal treatment. By eliminating the grace period of three-month for the convicted representatives to appeal and delay their disqualification process. There is no longer a designated timeframe for such appeals, indicating a more immediate and straightforward process for disqualification in response to contemporary expectations for transparency and efficiency in governance.
• The Court’s nuanced interpretation of Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) establishes a consistent approach to disqualifications. This constitutional clarity is essential for maintaining the integrity of legislative bodies, providing a foundation for ethical and accountable governance in the current political landscape.
• The judgment underscores the swift action against criminal convictions, reinforcing the need for a robust legal framework. This emphasis aligns with contemporary expectations, preventing individuals with serious criminal records from holding public office and safeguarding the public’s trust.
• The case sets a crucial judicial precedent that reinforces democratic principles. It sends a clear signal to the current political scenario, underlining the necessity of upholding ethical standards and ensuring elected representatives are promptly held accountable for criminal offenses.
• Hence, the judgment not only brings about significant legal reforms by mandating immediate disqualification and striking down an unconstitutional provision but also provides constitutional clarity and reinforces democratic values. It sets a powerful precedent for transparent and accountable governance in the contemporary political landscape, marking a moment in the ongoing evolution of India’s legal and political framework.

CONCLUSION:

The case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India signifies a momentous shift in India’s political and legal landscape. The Supreme Court’s decisive ruling, declaring Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 unconstitutional, is a landmark decision.

The immediate loss of membership for elected representatives convicted of a crime with a minimum two-year imprisonment marks a departure from the previous practice, eliminating the three-month appeal to delay the disqualification process. This change underscores the court’s commitment to prompt and transparent governance, aligning with contemporary expectations.

Constitutional interpretation, particularly regarding Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e), adds an additional layer of significance. The court’s emphasis on a consistent approach to disqualifications marks the importance of upholding the integrity of legislative bodies.

Beyond legal technicalities, this case sets a crucial precedent for democratic values. By reinforcing the principle that elected representatives should be promptly held accountable for criminal offenses, the judgment sends a powerful message about the ethical standards expected in public office.

In essence, the case not only reforms the disqualification process but contributes to shaping a political environment that prioritizes accountability, transparency, and adherence to constitutional principles.

FAQ

Q. What is the significance of the case Lily Thomas v. Union of India?

A. The case is significant as it declared Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, unconstitutional, mandating the immediate disqualification of elected representatives convicted of crimes punishable by at least two years of imprisonment. This ruling reinforced transparency, accountability, and ethical standards in governance.

Q. What was the Supreme Court’s ruling in this case?

A. The Supreme Court ruled that Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was unconstitutional. The Court held that Parliament exceeded its powers by creating an unwarranted distinction between disqualification for candidates and sitting members, leading to the immediate disqualification of convicted members.

Q. What constitutional articles were primarily considered in this judgment?

A. The judgment primarily considered Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution of India, which pertain to disqualifications for membership of the Parliament and State Legislatures, respectively.

Q. How does the judgment affect the Representation of the People Act, 1951?

The judgment invalidated Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, thereby removing the provision that allowed convicted sitting members to avoid immediate disqualification by filing an appeal within three months of their conviction.

Q. What is the impact of the judgment on Indian politics?

The judgment has a profound impact on Indian politics by ensuring that convicted representatives are immediately disqualified, thereby promoting ethical governance and reducing criminalization in politics. It sets a precedent for maintaining high ethical standards and accountability in public office.