Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword or section
Like this
4Activity
P. 1
The Judgement by Supreme Court - Disqualification of MP and MLA

The Judgement by Supreme Court - Disqualification of MP and MLA

Ratings: (0)|Views: 103 |Likes:
Published by mullookkaaran
The Supreme Court Rules That Henceforth, All Convicted MPs, MLAs, Will Be Disqualified From The Date of Conviction

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court today ruled that all the convicted MPs and MLAs in a criminal case will be disqualified from holding their offices from the day of the conviction itself, even if the conviction ruling is from a trial court.

In what ‘political pundits’ might call as a ‘Judicial overreach’ , The Supreme Court held that the Parliament lacked legislative competence to provide immunity to legislators convicted with criminal charges by the courts.

The Parliament had enacted Representation of the People Act, 1951 in which under sub-section 4 of section 8, MPs and MLAs were given immunity from disqualification if they were convicted for certain crimes by a trial or any other court.

This act was enacted based on the constitutional provisions under articles 102(e) and 191(e) which gave power to the Parliament to make such laws to specify grounds for disqualification of an MP and MLA respectively.

The bench of Justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhaya, discarded the government of India’s argument and upheld the writ petitions filed by Lily Thomas and S.N. Shukla, general secretary of Lok Prahari, an NGO from Lucknow.
The Supreme Court Rules That Henceforth, All Convicted MPs, MLAs, Will Be Disqualified From The Date of Conviction

In a landmark verdict, the Supreme Court today ruled that all the convicted MPs and MLAs in a criminal case will be disqualified from holding their offices from the day of the conviction itself, even if the conviction ruling is from a trial court.

In what ‘political pundits’ might call as a ‘Judicial overreach’ , The Supreme Court held that the Parliament lacked legislative competence to provide immunity to legislators convicted with criminal charges by the courts.

The Parliament had enacted Representation of the People Act, 1951 in which under sub-section 4 of section 8, MPs and MLAs were given immunity from disqualification if they were convicted for certain crimes by a trial or any other court.

This act was enacted based on the constitutional provisions under articles 102(e) and 191(e) which gave power to the Parliament to make such laws to specify grounds for disqualification of an MP and MLA respectively.

The bench of Justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhaya, discarded the government of India’s argument and upheld the writ petitions filed by Lily Thomas and S.N. Shukla, general secretary of Lok Prahari, an NGO from Lucknow.

More info:

Published by: mullookkaaran on Jul 11, 2013
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 490 OF 2005
Lily Thomas Petitioner
Versus 
Union of India & Ors. Respondents
WITHWRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 231 OF 2005
Lok Prahari, through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla Petitioner
Versus 
Union of India & Ors. Respondents
JUDGEMENTA. K. PATNAIK, J.
 These two writ petitions have been filed as Public InterestLitigations for mainly 
 
declaring sub-section (4) of Section 8of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as
ultra vires 
 the Constitution.
The background facts
2. The background facts relevant for appreciating thechallenge to sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act are that
 
 2
the Constituent Assembly while drafting the Constitutionintended to lay down some disqualifications for personsbeing chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament as well as a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State. Accordingly, in theConstitution which was finally adopted by the ConstituentAssembly, Article 102(1) laid down the disqualifications formembership of either House of Parliament and Article191(1) laid down the disqualifications for membership of theLegislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State. These two Articles are extracted hereinbelow:
102
.
Disqualifications for membership.
  –(1) A person shall be disqualified forbeing chosen as, and for being, a memberof either House of Parliament— (a) if he holds any office of profit underthe Government of India or theGovernment of any State, other than anoffice declared by Parliament by law notto disqualify its holder;(b) if he is of unsound mind and standsso declared by a competent court;(c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;(d) if he is not a citizen of India, or hasvoluntarily acquired the citizenship of aforeign State, or is under any 
 
 3
acknowledgment of allegiance oradherence to a foreign State;(e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.
191
.
Disqualifications for membership.
  – (1) A person shall be disqualified forbeing chosen as, and for being, a memberof the Legislative Assembly or LegislativeCouncil of a State— (a) if he holds any office of profit underthe Government of India or theGovernment of any State specified in theFirst Schedule, other than an officedeclared by the Legislature of the Stateby law not to disqualify its holder;(b) if he is of unsound mind and standsso declared by a competent court;(c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;(d) if he is not a citizen of India, or hasvoluntarily acquired the citizenship of aforeign State, or is under any acknowledgment of allegiance oradherence to a foreign State;(e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.[Explanation.—For the purposes of thisclause], a person shall not be deemed tohold an office of profit under theGovernment of India or the Governmentof any State specified in the FirstSchedule by reason only that he is aMinister either for the Union or for suchState.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->