)
There have been mixed reactions to Supreme Court's judgment barring convicted legislators from continuing in office. Even the political class is divided on the issue. Last Sunday, we had Rajya Sabha MP Shantaram Naik saying that the government should appeal against the verdict. But another Rajya Sabha MP, Rajeev Chandrasekhar, says that the Supreme Court's intervention is not only practical, it is needed. Excerpts from an interview with Veenu Sandhu
The Supreme Court has ruled that a member of Parliament or of the state legislature convicted of any criminal offence will be immediately disqualified. Your views.
There is a tendency in the political establishment to give itself special privileges, to create a super class of citizens. The Supreme Court has intervened to say that this is not possible. This myth of special dispensation of rights for themselves has been shattered, and rightly so. MPs and MLAs cannot be treated in any way as superior. (Under Section 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1951, a convicted person will be disqualified and will not be eligible to stand for election. Disqualification can be for a period of six years after release from prison. However, Section 8(4) states that if the person is an MP or MLA, disqualification would not apply until three months have elapsed from the date of conviction. And if within that period, an appeal is filed on that sentence, then it would not apply till that appeal or application is disposed of by the court).
Also Read
(In his consultation paper on 'Electoral Reforms' presented to the Law Commission some weeks ago, Chandrasekhar wrote: "Criminalisation of Politics is a worrying phenomenon. Candidates who have been convicted of criminal offences should not be allowed to contest elections. Disqualification should be upon conviction and not upon framing of charges.")
The apex court has also ruled that anybody who is in prison, whether convicted or facing trial, cannot contest an election. Will this judgment help decriminalise politics?
The merits are strongly in favour of this argument. If you are in prison, you cannot contest an election. This is what the founding fathers also said. The Constitution did not foresee a situation where a person who is in prison stands for election.
These two orders of the Supreme Court might appear to be far-reaching, but can they not be manipulated by political parties? Will this not give political parties the power to implicate their rivals in false cases to get them out of the way?
Here, the focus now moves to the judicial process. The ball is now in the court of the judiciary. If you want to clean up the executive part, there has to be a process where the judicial process is also stepped up. A person has to be given an opportunity to clear up his name as quickly as possible, say within a span of three months. Charged but not convicted or acquitted for years is a phenomenon unique to India. Look at Rajat Gupta's case; he was tried and convicted in less than a year. Compare this with the Sukh Ram case. It's a 1996 case and it took 15 years to reach its logical conclusion.
What would be a more pragmatic approach towards decriminalising politics?
We need to bring in the concept of recall elections. Currently, once elected, a representative is not accountable till the next election five years later. Now the Supreme Court has said that if you are convicted, you are out. But what if an elected representative works against the interests of the people and is involved in wrongdoing but is not charged or convicted?
In such a scenario, people should have the right to recall him. This power to the people is what will help decriminalise politics further.
