SC reserves order on pleas seeking disqualification of lawmakers with criminal background

Image
Press Trust of India New Delhi
Last Updated : Aug 28 2018 | 1:55 PM IST

The Supreme Court today reserved its verdict on a batch of petitions seeking disqualification of lawmakers even before their conviction in criminal cases to curb criminalisation of politics in the country.

A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra reserved the judgement after the parties including the Election Commission and the Central government concluded their arguments on the clutch of petitions.

Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for the Centre, lauded the intention of the apex court to cleanse the political system but put a caveat saying judiciary cannot venture into the lawmaking territory.

"The intention of the lordships is laudable. But the question is whether the court can do it. The answer is 'no'," the top-most law officer told the bench which also comprised justices R F Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra.

He also referred to the concept of presumption of innocence until a person is proven guilty and said the court cannot put a condition on a person's right to vote which also includes his right to contest.

The bench said that it did not intend to enter into the legislative domain but there was a right of electors to know the antecedent of a candidate.

The bench asked whether the court can ask the poll panel to put a condition that political parties will make public criminal antecedents of its members before elections so that the common public knows candidates and their criminal past if any.

The apex court had earlier dubbed criminalisation of politics as "rot", and said it may consider directing the Election Commission to ask political parties to get their members disclose criminal cases against them so that electors know how many "alleged crooks" are there in such parties.

The court was hearing petitions filed by various parties including NGO 'Public Interest Foundation', which exhorted the court to venture into the area of barring a person or a lawmaker from entering into electoral politics after framing charges against them in criminal cases.

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: Aug 28 2018 | 1:55 PM IST

Next Story