August 10, 2013
NEW DELHI: The government will amend the Representation of the People Act (RPA) to set aside the Supreme Court's ruling on disqualifying legislators immediately on conviction for an offence attracting a jail term of more than two years.
August 10, 2013
NEW DELHI: The government will amend the Representation of the People Act (RPA) to set aside the Supreme Court's ruling on disqualifying legislators immediately on conviction for an offence attracting a jail term of more than two years.
The government feels changing the law through a constitutional amendment is preferable to seeking a review in the apex court as the prospects of the latter course of action are not assessed to be all that bright.
"The SC is rarely prevailed on to reconsider its views in a matter where the court has interpreted the constitution," said a top government source.
The government is also amending the RPA to undo another part of the SC order that states that a candidate who is in custody before an election cannot contest. This will not require a constitutional amendment.
The constitutional amendment is needed to restore section 8(4) of the RPA that had moderated the implications of the preceding clauses of the law that set out conditions for disqualification of legislators.
Section 8(3) says a person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years "…shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years."
The SC upheld the supremacy of this clause over the subsequent one that says disqualification will not come into effect for three months, providing a window for an affected legislator to appeal the verdict. Once an appeal is admitted, disqualification is held at bay.
The political class is united in the view that summary disqualification robs legislators the recourse to legal options and by the time an appeal is pronounced, the term of the MP or MLA could be over.
Sources said the law needed to take into account "ground realities" where politics of vendetta were common and processes of law were not always immune to being tweaked. "If an adverse order is pronounced, the legislator has no option for redress," the source said.
There is, however, the counterview as activists argue cases relating to influential politicians drag on for years with the accused using every legal strategy to delay justice. Their access to expensive legal aid allows politicians to effectively thwart the course of justice, allowing witnesses to be influenced.
Over time witnesses might not easy to trace and their testimonies become unreliable. The amendments the government is considering will shield the political class, but the Centre may need to think about provisions to ensure speedy trial if it is sensitive to public opinion that seems to be overwhelmingly behind the SC ruling.
Courtesy: TOI
