Banning tainted leaders from polls: SC refuses urgent hearing

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Apr 03 2017 | 12:42 PM IST
The Supreme Court today refused to accord urgent hearing on a plea raising questions like whether people facing trial in serious crime cases can be allowed to contest and at which stage of trial, a lawmaker would stand disqualified.
"We have already fixed three matters for disposal by a five-judge Constitution bench in summer vacation," a bench of Chief Justice J S Khehar and Justice D Y Chandrachud said.
The observation came when Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, advocate and Delhi BJP spokesperson, sought setting up of a five-judge bench and disposal of the matter in the summer vacation.
"It is a very important issue for democracy in our country. I was assured by the court that a bench would be set up," he said, adding that it will not take more than three days in concluding the hearing.
"You cannot imagine how much time and efforts are needed in writing judgements," the bench said while making it clear that setting up of a Constitution bench to decide the issue is not possible in the near future.
The apex court had on January 5 said it will soon constitute a Constitution bench to decide these issues, adding that it cannot give an immediate answer to these questions since there is a fear of lodging false cases in elections.
A three-judge bench had on March 8 last year referred various PILs including the one filed by Upadhyay to the Chief Justice of India, saying questions like can a lawmaker facing criminal trial, be disqualified at conviction stage or at the framing of charge in a case have to be decided by a larger bench.
At present, a person, convicted in a serious criminal case, is barred from contesting polls and a lawmaker stands disqualified in the event of conviction.
The questions, raised in the petitions, also include whether a person against whom charges are framed be permitted to contest elections.
Besides Upadhyay, former Chief Election Commissioner J M Lyngdoh and NGO 'Public Interest Foundation' had filed PILs raising similar issues. The pleas were referred to the larger bench which is yet to be set up.

Disclaimer: No Business Standard Journalist was involved in creation of this content

*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: Apr 03 2017 | 12:42 PM IST

Next Story