SEARCH

News » National

Updated: July 11, 2013 09:34 IST

MPs, MLAs to be disqualified on date of criminal conviction

J. Venkatesan
Comment (70)   ·   print   ·   T  T  
The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave a big relief to political parties.
The Hindu The Supreme Court on Tuesday gave a big relief to political parties.

Supreme Court strikes down law that allowed time for appeal

The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that chargesheeted Members of Parliament 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.

A Bench of Justices A.K. Patnaik and S.J. Mukhopadhaya 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. The Bench, however, made it clear that the ruling will be prospective and those who had already filed appeals in various High Courts or the Supreme Court against their convictions would be exempt from it.

Section 8 of the RP Act deals with disqualification on conviction for certain offences: A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for varying terms under Sections 8 (1) (2) and (3) shall be disqualified from the date of conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. But Section 8 (4) of the RP Act gives protection to MPs and MLAs as they can continue in office even after conviction if an appeal is filed within three months.

The Bench found it unconstitutional that convicted persons could be disqualified from contesting elections but could continue to be Members of Parliament and State Legislatures once elected.

Allowing two writ petitions filed by advocate Lily Thomas and Lok Prahari, through its General Secretary S. N. Shukla, the Bench said: “A reading of the two provisions in Articles 102(1) (e) and 191(1) (e) of the Constitution would make it abundantly clear that Parliament is to make one law for a person to be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a Member of either House of Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State. Parliament thus does not have the power under Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution to make different laws for a person to be disqualified for being chosen as a member and for a person to be disqualified for continuing as a member of Parliament or the State Legislature.”

Writing the judgment, Justice Patnaik said: “ The language of Articles 102(1) (e) and 191(1) (e) of the Constitution is such that the disqualification for both a person to be chosen as a member of a House of Parliament or the State Legislature and for a person to continue as a member of Parliament or the State Legislature has to be the same.”

The Bench said: “Section 8 (4) of the Act which carves out a saving in the case of sitting members of Parliament or State Legislature from the disqualifications under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act or which defers the date on which the disqualification will take effect in the case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is beyond the powers conferred on Parliament by the Constitution.”

The Bench held: “Looking at the affirmative terms of Articles 102(1) (e) and 191(1) (e) of the Constitution, we hold that Parliament has been vested with the powers to make law laying down the same disqualifications for person to be chosen as a member of Parliament or a State Legislature and for a sitting member of a House of Parliament or a House of a State Legislature. We also hold that the provisions of Article 101(3) (a) and 190(3) (a) of the Constitution expressly prohibit Parliament to defer the date from which the disqualification will come into effect in case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature. Parliament, therefore, has exceeded its powers conferred by the Constitution in enacting sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act and accordingly sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.”

The Bench said: “Under Section 8 (1) (2) and (3) of the Act, the disqualification takes effect from the date of conviction. Thus, there may be several sitting members of Parliament and State Legislatures who have already incurred disqualification by virtue of a conviction covered under Section 8 (1) (2) or (3) of the Act. Sitting members of Parliament and State Legislature who have already been convicted of any of the offences mentioned in sub-section (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and who have filed appeals or revisions which are pending and are accordingly saved from the disqualifications by virtue of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act should not, in our considered opinion, be affected by the declaration now made by us in this judgment. This is because the knowledge that sitting members of Parliament or State Legislatures will no longer be protected by sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act will be acquired by all concerned only on the date this judgment is pronounced by this Court.”

However, the Bench said: “If any sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is convicted of any of the offences mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and by virtue of such conviction and/or sentence suffers the disqualifications mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act after the pronouncement of this judgment, his membership of Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, will not be saved by subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Act which we have by this judgment declared as ultra vires the Constitution notwithstanding that he files the appeal or revision against the conviction and /or sentence.”

More In: National | News

It is very important to remove all mla's and mp's from the politics who are involved in crime. Because they pass the laws according to the present situations of the country in every field. A person being a criminal or involved in crime cannot take effective decisions on crime nor in any field. And also removing them from the elections give opportunity for those who are not involved in any crime and who is interested in politics to serve country. I think the supreme court had really given a good judgement on politics after a very very long time, to get a little change in politics and to raise the hopes in poor people of the country.

from:  Dinesh
Posted on: Jul 15, 2013 at 09:54 IST

We are moving towars a secular India because of this S.C.'s decision

from:  HARSHIT GUPTA
Posted on: Jul 15, 2013 at 00:25 IST

It is good news for Indian now it can possible to make our country as developed India

from:  RAJENDRA BABU
Posted on: Jul 14, 2013 at 11:33 IST

Supreme Court is coming like a Savior to India & Indians at a very critical situation. Thank You Supreme Court. Political parties has no right to divide Indians in the name of Caste & Religion. This is very bad for Secular India. Election Commission of India should take in writing their Manifesto on their Letter Head. If they fail to fulfill their promises within 4 years then they should be Ban from running the next election. They should be ban for the next 4 years. By this, no political parties will make false promises to the poor voters of India.

from:  Aam Aadmi
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 23:36 IST

If responses from representatives of political parties in the
electronic media is any indication, there is no effort to hide the
shock with which political leadership has received the spirit of the
landmark judgment. The BPL (Businessmen-Politicians-Lawyers) combine
will soon find out modalities to save the ‘innocent’, as many have
been repeating that even if the guilty escapes, innocent should not be
punished and Indian law with several filters at various levels is
built on this principle.
If the concern is genuine, GOI should, in consultation with the Apex
Court, consider setting up a special court at the national level, to
consider and decide appeals against decisions affecting continuance of
legislators in a time-bound manner (say within six months from the
date of conviction) and provide to the appellants the facilities
normally provided to such convicted persons, during the interregnum.

from:  M G WARRIER
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 21:56 IST

Justices A.K. Patnaik and S.J. Mukhopadhaya are to be CONGRATULATED for
starting THE GREAT CLEAN UP OF INDIAN POLITICS, 65 years after
independence!

The SC verdict offers a great opportunity to the political parties and
the voters. How far the parties will go to clean up their act (AAP
already selects clean candidates only), the voters will soon find out.

The current system is rotten to the core and allegations of nexus
between politicians, judges and the police are also suspected. So, even
a partial clean out is to be welcomed, for the process would have
started, and the public/politicians/media would have been engaged in a
practical effort to clean up Indian politics.

Nothing has changed as yet; the voters and the media must remain alert
to all developments, and must insist upon changes - to strengthen
democracy, so essential to making India a prosperous and fair country.

from:  D Mahapatra
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 14:02 IST

Another step towards equality before law.

from:  Abhinav
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 12:51 IST

Section 8(4) of RP Act, 1950 states that the disqualification of an MP
or MLA shall not take place if an appeal is filed in the High Court
within the stipulated time of 3 months of the date of sentence and
they continue to remain in power until that appeal is disposed of by
the courts. This clause was misused by the legislature to protect
themselves. Now Supreme Court has considered this clause
unconstitutional and thus declared it ultra vires. This decision was
based on the fact that Article 102 and 191 of India Constitution which
is related to the disqualification of MPs and MLAs, respectively,
states that even sitting MP or MLA is not prevented from
disqualification, thus this clause is same for every person.
Parliament has no power to make different laws for different persons
as law is equal for all. Also Article 101 and 190 prohibits parliament
to defer the date of disqualification. It is within the power of SC to
declare any law as Ultra Vires which is against the Constitution.

from:  Akshay Dhadda
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 12:21 IST

Would be great if you could link through to the text of the sources/ constitutional
articles/ acts so that readers could gain a deeper understanding.

from:  Dhruv
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 11:58 IST

for the post of constable who is at grass root level, one of the
mandatory requirement is that there should not be any FIR against the
candidate. when a constable application is scrutinized in such a way,
why cant the politicians applications also be done so. In a country
where the Law is equal to everybody, then why this discrimination
between the top and bottom of the civil servants.

from:  karthik
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 11:56 IST

A welcoming judgement..... Once again Supreme Court has come out as a
savior of Justice :) but what is the scope of this disqualification
provision?

from:  BALAJI SANKAR
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 11:10 IST

The saddest part of Indian Democracy is that, we all believe someone else is responsible for our work. Judiciary feels excutive and legislature should be responsible , but they are not responsible. Same way with other two.
We live in a promise of a paradise rather than help create one.
Each of these functions are mal functioning to the best possible extent. They are the core of the malice. Each individual in these is a representative of this malice. We expect landmark judgements, landslide victories and excellent public service careers. With no effort from our side.

from:  Raghav
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 11:09 IST

Its a welcoming Judgement by SC. I wish if all the political parties honour the judgement by not amending it. It a endless debate that who should be disqualified because there will be pouring of political vendetta and the courts will be full of litigation if one has to be disqualified on the basis of conviction. But at least those involved in heinous crimes should be barred. Ultimately it is us who chose these tainted persons to Parliament and Legislatures. If we are careful in giving our vote to the right man then criminalization of politics can be stopped without any judgement from court or Parliament.

from:  Dr. Avinash Kumar
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 10:54 IST

More than any thing it is the lawyers who are playing the game.
it is not in the case of Members of Parliament but cases realted to
domestic violence ,dowry harassment lawyers are making money hiding the realities.cheating the deprived women who are approaching the court for justice .

A judgment that has been declared can't be felt as real or true one as in our judiciary system there is ample scope for manipulation of the judgment.I wondered! when a postmaster was able to manipulate judicial decisions in a maintenance case in AndhraPradesh visakhapatnam using lawyers.The judgment declared as not to provide maintenance to the girl as she is having earning capacity despite of the fact that she is not working at present and she is living along with her old parents.
will such judgments will encourage women to
approach court for justice?There is no use of law unless it is implemented .

Please take steps to change our judicial system to be more effective.

from:  sailaja kollabathula
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 10:49 IST

It is a wise judgement,because something is better than nothing.Days will come that based on this judgement,we may see some more land mark judgements from the Higher Courts,where the criminal politicians won't have any escape.

from:  V.Shanmuganathan
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 10:44 IST

The justice system is made to bow to the politicians, they can make a
constitutional amendment to getaway with this judgement, who knows.
Our politicians are well known for the same.
When it comes their own benefits, they never want to show their back,
brave people on the earth.
I think our honorable Govt of India will file a review petition to
getaway with this.
They might argue that false conviction might disqualify, which is
injustice itself

from:  ravi
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 10:40 IST

Although, its a forward move by the Apex Court. Considering the time
spent in arriving verdict, most of the convicted politicians would have
either outlived their political life or natural life span.

from:  Jeevan Shetty
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 10:16 IST

Landmark Judgement!!! Finally law decided to take its own course.
Good start to clean the country

from:  Srinivasan
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 10:14 IST

First the supreme court take initiative to set right their own judicial
system from the lower court to higher court to deliver the final verdict
of any of the criminal case in the shortest period involved by the
sitting MPs or MLAs.

'CHARITY MUST BE BEGIN AT HOME'

from:  A.SESHAGIRI
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 10:14 IST

Welcome move! But still lot needs to be done to revamp our Legislative and Judiciary system. It takes decades for the cases in District Court to be granted final judgement. Cant we have more no.of judges in District courts atleast? There is no respect for politicians at all, only bcoz of few criminals who contest in the elections. People lose faith amongst all !!! Not to forget the recent scams, it makes things even worst!!!!! Make Election Commissiosn to dictate few things for the betterment of People & the Country.

from:  Dilton
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 10:11 IST

This is excellent verdict ever delivered by Hon'ble Supreme Court. This
can be proved as milestone in Indian democracy. We have been witnessing
the incrimination of politics but this could be soft break on it.

from:  Atul Warhekar
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 10:08 IST

I think the judgement of the Supreme Court can be seen as cleansing of the
politics and an electoral reform. Earlier even a convicted (forget
about the FIR) candidate will get the ticket and will contest & win
the election. On the other hand, normal citizen while applying for the
Govt job if it found that there is/are FIR(s) against him/her they are
not selected. So why is this double standard for job and being MP/MLA.

Other part (according to Supreme Court) is any is convicted for 2 or
more year then the member ceased to be member and candidate cannot
contest election. I think it should be welcomed because at the that
particular moment candidate is found guilty. Now there is so much hype
on this that you cant imagine. Now imagine a student/citizen against
whom false FIR is registered, he cannot apply for job. So what Supreme
court wants to convey is you can contest the elections or be member
but be clean in term of criminal proceeding because you will only make
the LAW.

from:  Deepak Parmar
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 09:48 IST

Law makers would go all out to save their skins.They may even reinstate
the subsection (1) (2) and (3) and put in the 9th schedule by enacting
a constitutional amendment,thus making it non- justiciable. They are all
united on this "major backbone " of our democracy.

from:  Arun Mehta
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 09:47 IST

Good.. now speed up their trails... so we get new ppl.... fast is trials is the key...

from:  saakshi agarwal
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 09:34 IST

I agree with Amit Kumar Jha. Need to speed up things right from the
lower level courts so that cases would be solved at the earliest.

from:  Vinay kumar Mallipeddi
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 09:30 IST

It is historic judgment. It paves the way for Indian electroate to chose and elect non-criminal politicians and further this judgment totally restrain and close the door for corrupt and criminal convicted politicians to contest in the ensuing election.

from:  R. JAGANATHAN
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 09:30 IST

a welcome move of SC.........

from:  SAURABH RAJPUT
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 09:29 IST

Unquestionably this is a memorable day for India. What Supreme Court
did today may not be the solution for all evil, but it is the right
step in the right direction. This is what Anna Hazare and he team
should have done; change one thing at a time, instead of biting more
than what they can chew. If Congress and BJP are wise, they will not
try to legislate against the SC ruling. Just close your eyes and move
on for the sake of the nation. This is what Nehru could not achieve
during his life time, even though he wanted to. Now the Congress has
the opportunity to achieve his dream. This is the first step in fixing
India.
If Anna Hazare and the team are still sleeping, it is time to wake up.
There is a cause worth fighting for.

from:  Pkoln
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 09:16 IST

If you look at judgements of the Supreme Court in the last 2-3 years, one would know that it has supported people's views in various Government decisions and corruption cases. The judicial activism is frowned upon by politicians of all hue and color. But general public welcomes it wholeheartedly.
Supreme Court has given a 'hint' that it will not tolerate self-interest of political class.
I hope the fourth estate, i.e. the Press, Electronic Media, 'Civil Society' and Social Media together make Politicians see the mistake and correct their behaviour. Unfortunately Delhi has no 'Tahrir Square' or 'Tiananmin Square' 'Juntar Mantar' has not worked.

from:  murlidhar oak
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 09:08 IST

really it is a historic judgement with proper reasoning. i am really proud of my supreme court.it will
definetly curtail kattapanchayaths.

from:  thangavelu
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 08:34 IST

The Supreme Court of India has announced Historic verdict that once a
M.L.A. or M.P. is convicted and announced Jail for more then Two Years
he / she will be disqualified the same very date . Really a historic
verdict and step to halt criminalization in Politics .

from:  RAJAT KUMAR MOHINDRU .JALANDHAR CITY.PUNJAB
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 07:58 IST


"The Supreme Court on Wednesday held that chargesheeted Members of Parliament 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."

This verdict is a double-edged sword! This provision can also be used against good candidates to disqualify them. I don't know what measures are in place to tackle this problem.

from:  Ponga Pundit
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 07:45 IST

Another tame judgement that insults the intelligence of the common citizen. What is the point
in allowing people convicted of a crime from contesting elections again? They will get
elected again somehow by hook or by crook and thumb their nose at the law. Nothing is
going to change our criminal politics unless we find a few vertebrates to occupy our Supreme
Court and Election Commission.

from:  Viswanath
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 07:39 IST

Our political class will not accept this ruling with an appeal for a revision just as they are
doing in the case of CIC ruling on RTI for funding for elections. They became incorrigible in
matters of moral values and think that they are above law.

from:  MvjRao
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 07:37 IST

It is a good judgment and we should welcome it. Although we will get a lot more byelections
which are waste of money to the govt and income for constituent voters, we will see superior
gaming behaviour. Parties will think twice before giving seat to someone who has been
chargesheeted or in advance stage lf trial due to fear of disquLification midway during the
tenure ! but i dont understand why the supreme court has applied in prospectively when the
existing protection of 8(4) ultra vires the constitution ?? May be they didnt want to destablize
state govts in UP, Bihar, Haryana etc. which at the current state may witness instability.

from:  Gajamani
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 07:29 IST

Welcome gesture by Honoroble SC.
Wish its even more stringent, retrospective, and also "observed" some
path breaking reforms of the electoral laws.

from:  Srinivas
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 07:28 IST

Welcome judgement. Now the Parliament should take cue and bring out a constitutional amendment that convicted people should be permananently disqualified. Just 6 years disqualification is a a joke. We are a country with 1200 million population and there are hundreds of thousands of able politicians. Why should a convicted person get a chance that too so quickly after 6 years? Another joke on the common sense of the people. The convicted criminals should be permanently disqualified or at least for 20 years.

from:  Ilango G
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 07:24 IST

Persons with criminal records and those charged with murder, rape and
corruption should be kept out of the political system.The judicial
system should be improved to have judges with undoubted integrity and
dispose cases within a specified time frame.Political parties should
keep this in mind while distributing tickets for the varrious elected
bodies.Let us hope this will bring in some amount of fear among
politicians who are professed public servents and help clean the public
space of the country.

from:  C.M.PANICKER
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 07:22 IST

Thank God some one in the system has the courage to do some thing at least point out the flaws and remedial procedure. It gives me some hope that the party in power has to abide or do something that has to be done. This also gives the party an excuse to say it is not in their hands and say it is not the party but the SC and we have to take some action.

from:  Anjaneyul
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 07:05 IST

The Supreme Court has given a reasoned, cogent judgement that hopefully will reduce the influence of criminality in politics of the day. If we as citizens can do better in curbing criminalization of politics, let us do it. There is no reason to be cynical about the SC judgement. We should have faith in the Constitutional processes.

from:  Prosenjit Das Gupta
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 06:56 IST

All the elected politicians and government employees should be dismissed from their positions from the day they are convicted for criminal actions with less than 2 years of jail term. These criminal elected officials and government officials should be ineligible for elected positions and government jobs rest of their life. In addition to the elected officials and government employees, all the politicians with criminal convictions should be ineligible for holding any public office. The Election Commission should disqualify anybody convicted of any criminal acts. If politicians hide their past criminal convictions and get elected, the Election Commission should dismiss them once the criminal convictions is detected and their salary recovered. This rule should be applicable to all judges also. The Supreme Court decision is too little, too late and too lenient and applicable only to those convicted more than 2 years of jail term.

from:  Davis K. Thanjan
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 06:26 IST

This is indeed a landmark judgment that should go a long way in cleansing the augean stables and in ridding Parliament of criminals. However the onus should be on political parties who still consider only winnability as a factor and have no qualms in putting up candidates with criminal records and they should ensure that only candidates with blemishless records are nominated to august houses like assemblies and parliament.

from:  C V Aravind
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 05:56 IST

The attempt made by the Judiciary to cleansing the morally corrupt politicians is appreciable !

from:  Anonymous
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 05:47 IST

It is a landmark judgement which should be made operative with retrospective effect so that the existing MPs are disqualified forthwith. A measure which has come late in the day but better late than never. The judgement would go a long way in cleansing our polity and governance. Speedy disposal of criminal cases filed against persons in high positions would be the icing on the cake.

from:  R.Vijaykumar
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 05:07 IST

Soon RPA would be amended to give continuation a constitutional
coverage. Best minds in Constitutional protection for Criminal MLA, MP's
are at work. Rest Assured no MLA, no MP will loose their power to become
more criminal and more corrupt.

from:  Naveed
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 04:51 IST

This is good news... However, I feel our politicians have their own
workaround for such situations. They will get their wives / sons /
daughters to fill up their positions. So, don't think it would really
make much of a difference for them.

People should really think whom they are voting, instead of just looking
at the freebies offered / caste / religion equations...

from:  bala
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 04:09 IST

Good move and also it will be nice if their pensions are withheld. why we need corrupt people to lead Inida ?

from:  Mahesh
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 04:01 IST

The weak and incompetent political system which allowed erosion of
values, decency and decorum in public life, is forcing the legal
system to step in to take corrective measures. This does not augur
well for democracy, but there is a little alternative.
The proactive judiciary deserves to be complimented for a series of
far reaching decisions. But, at the same time, judiciary has to be
careful to ensure that there is no abuse of powers by the legal
system. There must be a proper supervision in the working of courts
and deterrent actions against those abusing powers.
The judiciary must work towards speedy justice.

from:  K V Laxmi Prasad
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 03:46 IST

Great News !!! All these long years we have allowed the criminals in the guise of politician's take us for a ride. After conviction they should be barred from public office for life.That is the only way to clean up politics in India.

from:  Avinash
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 03:45 IST

Only one comment, even the "The Hindu" carried is sensible and
scholarly written. That means, it only proves how low the Congress
govt has taken
to people to. Having said that I appreciate "Seshagiri Row Karry", for
his outspoken thoughts. Most people who come to write comments,
express their selfish interest and walk away as if they accomplished
something close to Gandhi's stature. Thats how the current youth has
been educated up to. No one is given ample imagination skills,
analytical skills from schools and colleges. _______________ Rewriting
the Constitution is the only way to separate the Accountability of
Executive govt and Legislative govt, by having separate Elections.
This is how the Nexus
between the Govt and MLA/MP can be eradicated from India's govt
system. Remember, Democracy is not a Smartphone, just to buy and use
it. Everyone one of you are part of this on-going process, if one is
not willing to participate, his heirs are ones pay final price decades
later.

from:  Dhakshinamurthy USA
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 02:34 IST

At the time of Independence the population of India was 350 Million in 1947 and based on the regional demographics of population, 543 MPs were being allocated to represent their constituencies in the Parliament, which enjoys the legislative powers for framing the laws for the land. However after 65 years of independence the population of country has increased to 1210 million and we have the same numbers of MPs representing them in Parliament.
Can our country MPs as policy makers introspect at the functioning of Parliament and increase the number of seats in the Parliament so as to a) increase the present burden on their responsibilities b) make politics as the career for masses c) reduce the created hype and the so much importance given to the MPs d) give opportunity to young leader having vision to do good for their country e) slacken the hierarchal nature of created leaders in the country etc
.

from:  Mukesh
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 02:33 IST

the constitution requires a 5-member bench to pronounce on any issue involving interpretation of the constitution. yet 2-member benches are striking down laws as unconstitutional.
on actual merits, there is no gainsaying that existing MPs etc become privileged on conviction, pending appeal, but not convicts for contesting. but these should not be a reason for not observing the 5-member bench requirement.

from:  c.raghavan
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 01:34 IST

Historic Judgement! What should have come from the leaders has been
forced upon them by the Supreme Court!

from:  DJ
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 01:23 IST

We are well past April 1.

from:  Tamizhanban
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 01:10 IST

Can we please have this judgement take effect retroactively - by as many years as possible?
That would disqualify a majority of our legislators and force elections.

from:  Gautham
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 00:48 IST

This is totally impractical. Dear judges, you take decades to speak
your mind. Let us say, one becomes an MP or MLA in 2013 and in the
same year, he/ she is alleged for committing a crime. Now the trial
goes on and goes on, and finally ends up in 2023. But, what we find is
in 2023? The term of very alleged MP/ MLA ended only in 2018. Was the
exercise worth? Need of the hour is getting rid of pending cases
against all alleged ministers who are having safe havens. Make it
mandatory for the government not to let the vacant posts of judges
remain vacant anymore.

from:  dalchand agrawal
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 00:47 IST

1.Mr Kunal Sinha, Sir, you say “What a way to circumvent the axe.
Everybody knows that the journey from District court to Supreme court
takes decades... Why doesnt the Supreme court just disqualifies the
candidates who doesnt have atleast one murder and rape case... Would
be much better than making jokes on the common sense of common
people...”. Is that your grievance? But, please note that the Apex
Court has made it clear that:“If any sitting member of Parliament or a
State Legislature is convicted of any of the offences mentioned in
sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and by virtue of
such conviction and/or sentence suffers the disqualifications
mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act
after the pronouncement of this judgment, ( to continue)

from:  P.Padmnaabhan
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 00:41 IST

2. his membership of Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case
may be, will not be saved by subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Act
which we have by this judgment declared as ultra vires the
Constitution notwithstanding that he files the appeal or revision
against the conviction and /or sentence.” Therefore, now that the
subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Act is declared ultra vires, how,
why and where does the question of circumventing the axe by the
alleged “ journey from District court to Supreme court that
admittedly takes decades in routine cases, arise at all?

from:  P.Padmnaabhan
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 00:40 IST

A positive move.

from:  Santhosh
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 00:17 IST

It is completely baffling that a judgment which holds a section of the RPA as "ultra vires" as it is against equality before law per the constition, will not be applicable to the criminal 'elite' that is in the existing legislatures. Isn't that the precise inequality, which the SC wanted to dispense away with... It would have been more effective, if the SC has immediately terminated memberships in legislatures of all folks with criminal convictions.. Now Pappu Yadavs and Mohd Taslimuddins' will merrily carry on along, but 'new criminals' can't get. I am surprised at this illogical decision by SC... Perhaps, some experts can throw some light on this.. ?

from:  Baskar Kothandaraman
Posted on: Jul 11, 2013 at 00:06 IST

A welcome judgement by the Supreme Court of India. Now, I believe we can
expect another Constitutional Amendment Act as the 42nd CAA given the
number of present legislators convicted of criminal charges.

from:  Tarun Mittal
Posted on: Jul 10, 2013 at 21:00 IST

The problem is the Judiciary. Incompetent judges and the lawyers that game the system.

from:  sathyavrath
Posted on: Jul 10, 2013 at 17:38 IST

Rest assured,no worry.What the Apex court "proposes",no sooner our parliament "disposes".Have a last laugh,MPs& MLAs

from:  Seshagiri Row Karry
Posted on: Jul 10, 2013 at 17:36 IST

It is futile to expect that the latest decision of the Supreme Court
can set things right. It is an open secret that cases against MPs,
MLAs, ministers etc remain undecided for years. The most recent
example is of a fraud case against former chief minister of Bihar Lalu
Prasad Yadav. This case is going on for over twenty years.
It is true that the Supreme Court is seized of the matter of delays in
judicial proceedings too. Delays have to be tackled by corrective
executive action. Unless we are able to expeditiously punish the
erring MPs, MLAs, ministers, etc. the latest decision of the Supreme
Court would not have any good impact. That is a bitter fact.

from:  Narendra M Apte
Posted on: Jul 10, 2013 at 17:34 IST

It's a historic and welcome judgement and a decision in the right
earnest aimed at getting rid of corrupt,criminal politicians. However,
this alone will not suffice. Efforts must be made to fast-track the
legal proceedings at lower level courts, where it takes years for a
case to be decided. Further, in view of the imminent implication of
their judgements, it must also be ensured that the lower courts do not
in any way come under outside pressure.

from:  Amit Kumar Jha
Posted on: Jul 10, 2013 at 17:29 IST

What a way to circumvent the axe. Everybody knows that the journey from
District court to Supreme court takes decades... Why doesnt the Supreme
court just disqualifies the candidates who doesnt have atleast one
murder and rape case... Would be much better than making jokes on the
common sense of common people...

from:  Kunal Sinha
Posted on: Jul 10, 2013 at 16:12 IST
Show all comments
This article is closed for comments.
Please Email the Editor

International

Tamil Nadu

Andhra Pradesh

Karnataka

Kerala


O
P
E
N

close

Recent Article in National

Bhagwat’s comments polarise Twitterati

Battle being played out under the hashtag #WeHindus »