In a landmark ruling, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a provision in the Representation of the People Act (RPA) that protects convicted MPs and MLAs from disqualification on the ground of pendency of appeals in the higher courts.
As per the judgment, now a lawmaker will stand disqualified from the date of conviction.
However, the decision will not apply to convicted MPs and MLAs who have already appealed before the Wednesday?s order. The ruling is aimed at removing the discrimination between an ordinary individual and an elected law maker who enjoys protection under the Act.
A bench of Justices AK Patnaik and SJ Mukhopadhaya said: ?The only question is about the vires of Section 8(4) of the RPA and we hold that it is ultra vires and that the disqualification takes place from the date of conviction,? said.
Under Sec 8(3) of the Act, a person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years shall be disqualified for that and a further six years after release.
The following sub-section 8(4) says a lawmaker cannot be disqualified for three months from the date of conviction and if within that period he or she appeals then till its disposal.
The Election Commission, has in its reports from time to time, has been seeking amendment of the law for removal of the incumbent advantage to elected MPs and MLAs convicted of various offences. But political parties have been resisting change on the ground that ruling dispensations bring false charges out of political vendetta to keep rivals out of election process.
According to findings of the Association for Democratic Reforms, an NGO, 162 sitting MPs face criminal charges in various cases of which 76 involve offences punishable with imprisonment of more than five years.
Similarly, a total of 1,460 MLAs face criminal charges in various courts. Thirty per cent of these are punishable with more than five years? imprisonment.
The apex court?s verdict came on petitions filed by a lawyer Lily Thomas and NGO Lok Prahari, through its secretary SN Shukla, who had sought striking down of provisions of RPA on the ground that they violate certain constitutional provisions which, among other things, expressly put a bar on criminals getting registered as voters or becoming MPs or MLAs.
The PILs had said that certain sections of RPA allow convicted lawmakers to continue in office while their appeals are pending and thus those provisions are ?discriminatory and encourage criminalisation of politics?.
