By sending a strong message that politicians facing criminal charges framed by a court should be disqualified from becoming Ministers, the Supreme Court has stepped away from the age-old principle that a “person is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.”
Framing of charges in a criminal trial is a “judicial act”, Justice Dipak Misra, who wrote the lead judgment for Chief Justice of India R.M. Lodha’s Constitution Bench, said on Wednesday, disposing of a PIL.
He said the framing of charges by a judge was not the same as the lodging of an FIR by a probe agency. Charges are framed in a criminal trial after the judge is satisfied there is prima facie evidence against the accused after perusal of the final charge sheet.
ADVERTISEMENT
“Framing of charge is a judicial act by an experienced judicial mind,” Justice Misra said.
Besides, a tainted Minister heading a “high-integrity institution” cannot take refuge with only a mere presumption of innocence to defend him, Justice Misra said.
“There can be no dispute over the proposition that unless a person is convicted, he is presumed to be innocent, but the presumption of innocence in criminal jurisprudence is something all together different, and not to be considered for being chosen as a Minister,” Justice Misra said.
ADVERTISEMENT
He added that at the heart of the court’s message to Parliament was its concern about the “rampant criminalisation of politics.”
To this extent, the court brushed aside the 1948 Constituent Assembly Debates of the Constitution framers, who had then dismissed even criminal conviction as a disqualification for being appointed Ministers, choosing instead to repose faith in the Prime Minister’s advice.
But 66 years later, Supreme Court differed, saying times had changed.
“With the change of time, the entire complexion in the political arena as well as in other areas has changed. This court, on a number of occasions, has taken note of the prevalence and continuous growth of criminalisation in politics,” Justice Misra observed.
Justice Kurian Joseph on the Bench, in his separate judgment, said a person charged with a criminal offence was presumed to be in “conflict with the law.”
“Is it not that his integrity is already under question?” Justice Joseph asked. “If so, is it desirable in a country governed by the rule of law to entrust executive power with such a person who is already in conflict with the law?”
Justice Madan B. Lokur, the third judge who wrote a separate verdict, referred to the 244th Report of the Law Commission on Electoral Disqualification on February 2014 to show that “one-third of the elected candidates at Parliament and State Assembly levels in India have some form of criminal taint.”
To prove his point, Justice Lokur cited the government’s own documents such as the 18th Report of the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on disqualification of persons charged with criminal offences from contesting elections.
“The Report acknowledges the criminalisation of our polity and necessity of cleansing the political climate,” he observed.