Supreme Court's order a tool for political vendetta: Shantaram Naik

Interview with Rajya Sabha MP

The Supreme Court has passed two landmark judgments that can decriminalise politics. Veenu Sandhu speaks with Shantaram Naik, Rajya Sabha MP and chairman of the parliamentary standing committee on personnel, public grievances, law and justice, on the ramifications of the court's orders

The Supreme Court has ruled that an MP or MLA convicted of any criminal offence will be immediately disqualified. But what happens if the conviction is overturned on appeal? Your views.
There are currently three categories of conviction: fine, imprisonment (even for one day) and imprisonment for not less than two years. In the case of persons convicted under the Indian Penal Code for offences of bribery, spreading communal hatred, rape, untouchability, unlawful activities, offences related to foreign exchange, drugs and narcotics, etc, a fine or imprisonment of even one day will disqualify them from contesting elections. Further, convicted persons will continue to be disqualified for a period of six years from the date of release. For other offences, a minimum imprisonment of two years only will incur disqualification.

But, this judgment of the Supreme Court says that an appeal will not prevent a disqualified sitting member from losing his seat unless the judgment [against him] is stayed. Therefore, if a stay is granted after the by-election is held, it will be redundant and, it is doubtful whether the stay can at all be granted restoring the status of an unseated legislator. Anomaly in the judgment is a matter of great worry and Parliament has to either file an immediate appeal or enact an appropriate amendment legislation.

The court has also ruled that anybody who is in prison, whether convicted or facing trial, cannot contest an election. Will this help decriminalise politics? Or is this a case of judicial overreach?

There is a need to restore the supremacy of Parliament in the matter of enacting legislations and, if any judgment of the Supreme Court crosses the limit of its power of interpreting the Constitution, the government must respond by following legal and constitutional methods. If the Supreme Court enacts laws because Parliament is not doing its duty, as it contends, this would mean and imply that the Supreme Court does not, in fact, have any such powers but is doing its duty, may be in "national interest". By the same logic, if the prime minister, who is the executive head, starts saying that lakhs of cases are pending in the Supreme Court and various High Courts without judgments being passed and he, as the prime minister, would like to step in to dispose of these cases, will the courts allow him to do so? Certainly not. Similarly, the judiciary should understand its limitations and refrain from overstepping.

These two orders might appear to be far-reaching, but can they not be manipulated by political parties. Parties can implicate their rivals in false cases to get them out of the way?
Given the scenario in which elected representatives are working, this judgment will be an effective tool in the hands of the state governments to resort to political vendetta against their rivals. This will happen if even the lowest criminal courts in India are permitted to decide the fate of elected representatives in such a loose manner.

What about the Allahabad High Court's decision to ban caste-based rallies in Uttar Pradesh?

This has to be examined in the light of the constitutionally-recognised scheduled caste and scheduled tribes. Whether the Supreme Court has taken away the rights of such communities is what needs to be studied.

What would be a more practical and pragmatic approach towards decriminalising politics?
Since this is an era of coalition governments, political parties should sit together and enact an appropriate amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 to ensure that persons with criminal background do not get an opportunity to contest elections. But, the law enacted on the subject should be rational. Further, voluntary associations should make the public aware of the dangers of criminals contesting elections. But persons posing to be members of voluntary associations and then forming political parties on the ground that corrupt politicians can only be fought by entering Parliament also cannot be trusted by the people.

The government seems prepared to appeal against this order. What is your view?
The government should certainly resort to all the judicial and legislative remedies.