Landmark Judgement
Lily Thomas Vs. Union Of India, 2013
New Concept of Equality
Supreme Court·10 July 2013
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court
Date of Decision
10 July 2013
Judges
Justices Shudhanshu J. Mukhopadhaya ⦁ A.K. Patnaik
Citation
(2013) 7 SCC 653
Acts / Provisions
Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Facts of the Case
- In 2005, Lily Thomas, along with the advocate Satya Narain Shukla from Lucknow, filed a writ petition in the Supreme Court for the purpose of challenging Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This Section sought to protect the convicted politicians against any sort of disqualification from contesting the elections, on the ground of pending appeals against their conviction in the appellate courts. Although the petition filed by the petitioners was rejected at the first attempt, eventually after nine years, after constantly making attempts, later in July 2013, the Supreme Court bench, which comprised Justices A.K. Patnaik and S.J. Mukhopadhaya, passed a verdict.
- The facts that are relevant to this case, i.e, to challenge Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, are that the Constituent Assembly laid down certain grounds for disqualification of MPs and MLAs under Articles 102 and 191, respectively, of the Constitution of India. Clause (e) in both the Articles empowers the Parliament to lay additional grounds for disqualification under any law made by them. Therefore, by using the powers given by the Constitution in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e), the Parliament enacted the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provides for disqualification of the Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs) on conviction for certain offences listed under Section 8. Subsection (4) of the aforementioned Section protects any sitting MP or MLA of any State from disqualification with immediate effect in case of conviction for any of the offences mentioned under that Section.
- The petitioner Lily Thomas, an advocate along with others, has therefore filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) before the Supreme Court of India in 2005, challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and declaring it as ultra-vires to the Constitution.
Issues
- Whether the Parliament was competent to enact Sub-section 4 of Section 8 of the act?
- Whether Sub-section 4 of Section 8 of the act, was an ultra-virus to the constitution of India, and if it had contradicted the objective of the framers of the constitution?
- Whether the convicted person has any remedy provided if the appellate court has acquitted that person?
Held
- The petitioners argued that the opening words of clause (1) of Articles 191 & 102 of the Indian Constituion make it evident that the same disqualifications are provided for an individual being chosen as a member of either House of Parliament, or the State Assembly or Legislative Council of the State and for an individual being a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State and so, the disqualifications for an individual to be elected as a member of either House of the Parliament or of the Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of the State and for an individual to continue as a member of either House of Parliament or of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of the State can’t be different.
- In support of their arguments, the petitioners cited a constitutional bench judgement of the Supreme Court in Election Commission of India v Saka Venkat Rao whereby the Court had held that the disqualifications were the same for both standing in an election and continuing as a member.
- The petitioners thus prayed that Section 8(4) be struck down as ultra vires because the Parliament lacks the legislative power to enact such a provision.
- The defendant argued that the validity of Section 8(4) has already been upheld by the constitutional bench of the apex court in K. Prabhakaran v P. Jayarajan. The ASG also argued that the frequency of acquittals in the higher courts is very high and as such, it is for this reason that Parliament had provided for Section 8(4).
Analysis
- This is a landmark ruling regarding the MLA Disqualification with respect to cleaning politics from the effect of criminalisation, but the evil of criminalization still ails the political system. The criminalisation of politics, in addition to tainting fairness of elections, also leads to bad governance, lack of trust in politics/politicians and social disharmony.
- While such rulings from the apex court are an earnest attempt to cleanse politics, this deep-rooted evil continues to ail the Indian democratic setup. Criminalisation, along with money power and muscle power, has turned the Indian electoral system into a cesspool. The attempt at cleansing politics from criminalization is incomplete without strong legislation in this sphere along with giving the Election Commission more autonomy to deal with this issue.
- The Court further observed that the sitting members who have already benefitted from Section 8(4) would not be affected by this judgment. However, if any sitting member of Parliament or state legislature is convicted under subsections 1, 2 and 3 of Section 8, he/she shall stand disqualified by virtue of this judgment.