The Representation of the People Act

From Indpaedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is a collection of articles archived for the excellence of their content.
You can help by converting these articles into an encyclopaedia-style entry,
deleting portions of the kind normally not used in encyclopaedia entries.
Please also fill in missing details; put categories, headings and sub-headings;
and combine this with other articles on exactly the same subject.

Readers will be able to edit existing articles and post new articles directly
on their online archival encyclopædia only after its formal launch.

See examples and a tutorial.

Contents

Legislators convicted of crime/ Criminals in politics

MPs, MLAs will be disqualified on date of conviction: SC

PTI | Jul 10, 2013

The Times of India


NewDelhi: In a judgment that may help decriminalize politics, the Supreme Court on Wednesday struck down a provision in the electoral law that protects a convicted lawmaker from disqualification on the ground of pendency of appeal in higher courts.

The apex court also made it clear that MPs, MLAs and MLCs would stand disqualified on the date of conviction.

The court said Parliament had exceeded its powers by enacting the provision (Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act) that permits a convicted lawmaker to remain in office on the ground that appeals have been filed and are pending. The bench of justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhaya, in its 41-page verdict, however, clarified that convicted lawmakers whose appeals are pending prior to pronouncement of Wednesday’s verdict are “saved” as it would come into effect prospectively.

The court discussed Article 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution that deal with the issue of disqualification of MPs of either House of Parliament and MLA and MLCs of the legislative assembly or legislative council of the state respectively. PTI

Breather for legislators who’ve filed appeals

“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 (RP) Act and accordingly sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is ultra vires to the Constitution,” it said.

It said as “Parliament had no power to enact sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act” and hence, it would not deal with other issues raised in the two PILs filed by a lawyer Lily Thomas and NGO Lok Prahari. The PILs had sought striking down of this provision on the ground that they violate certain constitutional provisions which, among other things, expressly put a bar on criminals getting registered as voters or becoming MPs or MLAs.

The SC said, “Sitting members of Parliament and State Legislature who have already been convicted for any of the offences mentioned in subsection (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 be affected by the declaration now made by us in this judgement.

“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 judgement is pronounced by this Court.”

It, however, said if any sitting MPs, MLAs of MLCs are convicted after the pronouncement of this verdict “his membership of Parliament or the State Legislature will not be saved by subsection (4) of Section 8 of the Act which we have by this judgement declared as ultra vires the Constitution notwithstanding that he files the appeal or revision against the conviction and /or sentence.” PTI

Persons in jail or police custody cannot contest elections to legislative bodies

Double whammy: Netas in jail can’t fight polls, says SC

TNN & AGENCIES 2013/07/12

The Times of India

New Delhi: The days of politicians fighting elections from jail are over. The Supreme Court has ruled that a person, who is in jail or in police custody, cannot contest elections to legislative bodies.

The far-reaching order was passed by the apex court along with its landmark verdict that MPs, MLAs and MLCs would be disqualified the day they are convicted. This double whammy against criminals in Indian legislatures is expected to go a long way in cleaning up politics.

An apex court bench of Justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhayay ruled that only an “elector” can contest the polls and he/she forfeits the right to vote during imprisonment or in police custody. However, the court said this disqualification would not be applicable to a person subjected to preventive detention under any law.

The court based its order on provisions of the Representation of the People Act. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act lay down that in order to be elected to Parliament or state legislatures, the individual must be an elector.

SC verdict to help clean up electoral process

The bench also referred to Section 62(5) of the Act which says that no person shall vote at any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police.

Reading Sections 4, 5 and 62(5) together, the apex court came to the conclusion that a person in jail or police custody cannot contest elections.

Going by the court’s reasoning, it appears that this ineligibility will not hold back a politician if he or she is out of jail before the date for filing papers. However, it will still be a drastic change from the current scheme of things where politicians have not only contested but also won elections from behind bars.

George Fernandes and A K Roy, for example, won elections while in jail during Emergency in 1977. “Ba[h]ubalis” and criminals with immense political clout, across party lines, have since regularly contested and won elections while in jail.

“We do not find any infirmity in the findings of the high vourt in the impugned common order that a person who has no right to vote by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 62 of the 1951 Act is not an elector and is therefore not qualified to contest the election to the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of a State,” the apex court said.

In its landmark judgment on Wednesday, the same bench had struck down a provision in the Representation of the People Act that protects a convicted lawmaker from disqualification on the ground of pendency of appeal in higher courts.

Disqualification of elected representative if convicted

EC can take up with assembly/ Parliament to notify disqualification of representative

Dhananjay Mahapatra, `EC can't term convicted MLA's seat vacant without House notice, Nov 08 2016 : The Times of India


In a startling disclosure, the Election Commission informed the Supreme Court on Monday that a UP minister was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment but his disqualification was not notified by the assembly , allowing him to remain an MLA for one-and-a-half years.

The Representation of the People Act envisages disqualification of an elected representative if he she is convicted for a crime and sentenced to more than two years' imprisonment. The SC had struck down a provision that permitted the representative to continue in the House if heshe merely filed an appeal against the conviction and sentence.

Appearing for the EC, senior advocate Meenakshi Arora told a bench headed by Chief Justice T S Thakur that the commission could initiate the process of holding elections in the constituency from where the convicted MLA or MP belong ed only after the assembly or Parliament notified disqualification of the elected representative and declared the seat vacant.

A PIL filed by NGO `Lok Prahari' through its secretary S N Shukla had informed the SC that courts in the hinterland did not have a practice to inform the EC about conviction and sentence of elected representatives, allowing them to continue in contravention of RP Act provisions.

The bench found Shukla's plea reasonable. But Arora pointed out that the EC on its own was not empowered under the law to declare a seat vacant following a person's conviction and sentence by a court. Additional solicitor general Maninder Singh too informed the court that under the rules, the EC could not hold election to a seat unless it was declared vacant by the concerned House to which the convicted representative belonged.

In the UP case, Arora informed the court that the state government kept the matter pending by unnecessarily seeking opinion from different quarters and then referring the matter to the governor.

The bench said if a convicted MP or MLA got a stay on hisher conviction and sentence prior to holding of elections by the EC, heshe could continue. “But if the EC comes to know of conviction and sentence of an MP or MLA, it could also take up the issue with the concerned authorities in assembly and Parliament to issue appropriate notification declaring disqualification of the representative and vacancy of the seat,“ the CJI said.


Legal experts said the two verdicts would force political parties to make sure that candidates facing criminal charges are not fielded.

The court had in Wednesday’s judgement held that Parliament exceeded its powers by enacting the provision (Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act) that gives a convicted lawmaker the power to remain in office on the ground that appeals have been filed and pending.

The sub-section 8(4), which was struck down, said a lawmaker cannot be disqualified for three months from the conviction and if in that period he or she files an appeal against till its disposal by a higher court.

See also

Criminals in politics: India

The Representation of the People Act

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions