Centre seeks review of SC decision on convicted lawmakers

Image
IANS New Delhi
Last Updated : Aug 12 2013 | 8:39 PM IST

The central government Monday moved the Supreme Court seeking the review of its verdict holding that lawmakers would stand unseated upon their conviction in certain criminal cases.

The apex court July 10 declared unconstitutional the provision of the Representation of the People Act (subsection 4 of Section 8) that allowed elected representatives to continue as members of the elected bodies even after conviction in criminal cases and had three months' time to move the higher court to get a stay on their conviction.

The review petition said the judgment ought not to have been passed by the two-judge bench as the validity of Section 8(4) of the act was upheld by the constitution bench of the apex court.

The constitution bench of the apex court held that "once elections have been held and a house has come into existence, and if a member of the house is convicted and sentenced, such a situation needs to be dealt with on a different footing", said the government's petition.

The apex court bench of Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhaya in their July 10 judgment held that "parliament thus does not have the power under Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the constitution to make different laws for a person to be disqualified for being chosen as a member and for a person to be disqualified for continuing as a member of parliament or the state legislature."

The court said its verdict would be effective prospectively only and would not have any bearing on the existing lawmakers who have been convicted or whose appeals were pending.

The constitution bench, review petition said had further held that "the stress is not merely on the rights of an individual to contest an election or to continue as a member of a House, but the very existence and continuity of a House democratically constituted."

The review petition said the two-judge bench should not have proceeded to hear and determine the issues that arose in the interpretation of a provision of the constitution.

The government said sub-section 4 of section 8 of the act was inserted not to confer any advantage on existing lawmakers but to protect the house and legislature.

*Subscribe to Business Standard digital and get complimentary access to The New York Times

Smart Quarterly

₹900

3 Months

₹300/Month

SAVE 25%

Smart Essential

₹2,700

1 Year

₹225/Month

SAVE 46%
*Complimentary New York Times access for the 2nd year will be given after 12 months

Super Saver

₹3,900

2 Years

₹162/Month

Subscribe

Renews automatically, cancel anytime

Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans

Exclusive premium stories online

  • Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors

Complimentary Access to The New York Times

  • News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic

Business Standard Epaper

  • Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share

Curated Newsletters

  • Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox

Market Analysis & Investment Insights

  • In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor

Archives

  • Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997

Ad-free Reading

  • Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements

Seamless Access Across All Devices

  • Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app

More From This Section

First Published: Aug 12 2013 | 8:28 PM IST

Next Story