Central Idea

The Supreme Court’s recent decision to stay the conviction in a criminal defamation case has significant implications for the parliamentary representation of a prominent political leader.
The court highlighted the absence of valid reasons for awarding the maximum sentence and emphasized the need for mutual respect and caution in public speeches.

Disqualification of Lawmakers

This is an important aspect of maintaining the integrity of the legislative bodies.
In India, disqualification can occur under constitutional provisions and the Representation of The People Act (RPA), 1951.
Additionally, the Tenth Schedule deals with defection-related disqualifications.

Constitutional Provisions: Disqualification under Articles 102(1) and 191(1) applies to members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. Grounds include holding an office of profit, being of unsound mind, insolvent, or lacking valid citizenship.
Defection: The Tenth Schedule of the Constitution provides for disqualification on the grounds of defection.
RPA, 1951: This Act mandates disqualification for conviction in criminal cases.

Section 8: Section 8 of the RPA deals with disqualification for conviction of offences.
Objective: The provision aims to prevent the criminalization of politics and bar ‘tainted’ lawmakers from contesting elections.
Disqualification Period: Section 8(3) specifies that a person convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years will be disqualified from the date of conviction and for an additional six years after release.

Reversal: Disqualification can be reversed if a higher court grants a stay on the conviction or decides the appeal in favor of the convicted lawmaker.
Lok Prahari v Union of India: In a 2018 decision, the Supreme Court clarified that the disqualification will not take effect if the appellate court stays the conviction.
Appeals Process: For example, if a convicted lawmaker appeals, it would first go to the Surat Sessions Court and then to the Gujarat High Court.

Section 8(4) of RPA: Previously, Section 8(4) stated that disqualification takes effect after three months from the date of conviction.
Lily Thomas v Union of India: In the landmark 2013 ruling, the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RPA as unconstitutional.
Significance: The verdict aimed to prevent convicted politicians from continuing to hold public office while their appeals were pending, contributing to the purification of Indian politics.

Lack of Reasoning: The court noted that the trial judge failed to provide any reasons for awarding the maximum sentence, considering the penal code allowed various options for punishment.
High Court’s Omission: The Supreme Court observed that the High Court, in its judgment, overlooked the crucial aspect of the lack of reasoning behind the severe punishment.
Impact on Representation: The court highlighted that disqualification from Parliament affects not only the individual but also the electorate represented by the person in question, raising concerns about unrepresented constituencies.
Exercise of Caution by Public Figures: While accepting the apology for his previous “thief” remarks during the general elections, the Court reminded him of the need for caution in public speeches due to his position in public life.