SP member questions SC order on disqualification of MPs, MLAs

A member in Rajya Sabha today raised question over the Supreme Court's July 2013 order on immediate disqualification of MPs and MLAs after conviction and asked why should their membership not be restored if a higher court sets aside a lower court order.
Raising the issue, Samajwadi Party member Naresh Agrawal also asked that since AIADMK chief and former Chief Minister J Jayalalithaa has now been acquitted, why can't her membership not be restored.
Jayalalithaa was acquitted yesterday in a 19-year-old disproportionate assets case against her by the Karnataka High Court which said her conviction suffered from infirmity and was not sustainable in law.

Jayalalithaa was unseated from the Chief Minister's post on August 27 last year when the trial court convicted her and was automatically disqualified as a member of the Assembly and barred from contesting elections for 10 years.
The latest verdict has cleared the way for her to return to power and contest elections.
Agrawal said that neither the Representation of the People Act nor the CrPC have any provision in which even if a lower court convicts a member for three years, he has to suffer disqualification.

"How did an order of the Supreme Court become a law? The right to enact law belongs to Parliament. This way the membership of all MPs and MLAs will come under threat. I would like you to give a ruling on it," the SP member said.

Agreeing with Agrawal on the broader point, Deputy Chairman P J Kurein said what Agrawal has submitted was a very important point.
"I also feel many times that what is the legal option if a higher court reverses the judgement of a lower court, which has given punishment," he said but refrained from giving a ruling saying that he cannot do so.
"Let members give a motion," Kurien said.
The Supreme Court had in July 2013 held that chargesheeted MPs and MLAs, on conviction for offences, will be immediately disqualified from holding membership of the House without being given three months' time for appeal, as was the case before.

The apex court had struck down as unconstitutional, Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act that allows convicted lawmakers a three-month period for filing appeal to the higher court and to get a stay of the conviction and sentence.