Syllabus: GS2 – Salient Features of the Representation of People’s Act.
Source: The Hindu/23 – 08 -2023
Context:
Rahul Gandhi, a member of the Congress party, was convicted in a 2019 defamation case, resulting in his immediate disqualification. This incident has triggered public debates concerning Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act 1951 and the Supreme Court’s Lily Thomas v/s Union of India judgment (2013).
Case History:
- Rahul Gandhi’s Remark: During 2019 Lok Sabha elections, Rahul Gandhi made a statement about the “Modi” surname, referencing individuals like Nirav Modi, Lalit Modi, and Narendra Modi.
- Defamation Case: He was found guilty and sentenced to two years in jail by a Surat court in a 2019 defamation case.
- Legal Basis: Court used Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for defamation, with potential imprisonment up to two years or fine, or both.
- Bail Granted: Rahul Gandhi was granted bail on a Rs 15,000 surety, and the sentence was suspended for 30 days for further appeal.
- Disqualification: Following his conviction, Rahul Gandhi was disqualified as a Member of Parliament under Article 102(1)(e) of the Indian Constitution read with Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
- Supreme Court Stay: The Supreme Court granted a stay on his conviction in the defamation case, effectively suspending the conviction’s effect.
- Reinstatement: With the grant of stay, Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification was nullified, and his parliamentary membership was restored.
- Outcome: Rahul Gandhi’s conviction was put on hold, and his disqualification was reversed, allowing him to regain his parliamentary position.
Content:
What is Representation of People Act 1951?
- The Constitution gives Parliament the power to make rules about elections for both Parliament and State Legislatures.
- Parliament used this power to create important laws like the Representation of the People Act 1950 (RPA Act 1950) and the Representation of the People Act 1951 (RPA Act 1951).
- The RPA Act, 1951, enacted by the Indian Parliament, plays a pivotal role in overseeing the election procedures for members of the Houses of Parliament and State Legislatures.
- This Act addresses conduct of elections for both Parliament and the Legislature of each State.
- Specifies the qualification and disqualifications for membership of those Houses.
- Addresses issues concerning the corrupt practices and other unlawful acts linked to these electoral processes.
- It also resolves uncertainties and disagreements arising from or associated with these elections.
Provisions Regarding Disqualifications for MPs and MLAs:
- Conviction and Jail Term: Section 8 (3) of the Act states that A conviction resulting in a jail term of 2 years or more disqualifies an MP or MLA for 6 years from release.
- If a person is on bail after conviction and has an ongoing appeal, they are not allowed to contest elections.
- Appeal Timeframe: Previously, Section 8(4) allowed convicted MPs, MLAs, and MLCs to continue if they appealed within 3 months of trial court judgment.
- Supreme Court Ruling: In July 2013, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 8(4), stating disqualification is effective from the conviction date.
Section 8(4) of the RPA, 1951: Disqualification and Legal Changes.
- As per Section 8(4) of the RPA, disqualification becomes active after a three-month period following the conviction date.
- During the 3 months’ timeframe, an individual can submit an appeal against the sentence to the higher court.
- In the Lily Thomas v/s Union of India case in 2013, the Supreme Court deemed it unconstitutional that the convicted persons could be disqualified from contesting elections but could continue to be MP, MLA, or MLC once elected.
What happened in Lily Thomas v/s Union of India case?
- On July 10, 2013, the Supreme Court of India delivered a judgment in the case of Lily Thomas vs Union of India.
- The verdict stated that any MP, MLA, or MLC convicted of a crime with a minimum two-year prison term would immediately lose their membership in the respective house.
- In the Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) case, the Supreme Court invalidated Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act 1951. This section allowed convicted lawmakers a three-month window to appeal to a higher court, obtaining a stay on their conviction and sentence.
Concerns with Lily Thomas v/s Union of India case:
- Legal question emerged whether a stay of sentence or conviction was necessary to lift disqualification.
- Different High Courts had contradictory perspectives on this issue, leading to uncertainty.
- Immediate disqualification could disrupt legislators’ careers as quick disqualification hinders their legislative work.
- Courts generally have a slow system for handling appeals and revisions, creating potential unfairness.
- Mr. Gandhi’s case showed that getting a stay on conviction, even for non-cognizable and bailable offenses, required significant time and Supreme Court intervention.
Criminalization of Politics: An Issue of the Hour
- Criminalization of politics Involves criminals participating in government politics, contesting elections, and winning seats in Parliament and state legislatures.
- It undermines democracy’s core principles of fair elections, adherence to laws, and accountability.
- As per Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) data candidates with criminal charges elected to Indian Parliament increased since 2004.
- In 2004, 24% MPs had pending criminal cases.
- In 2019, 43% MPs faced such charges.
- In 2019 Lok Sabha elections: 159 MPs had serious criminal cases, including rape, murder, and crimes against women.
Strategies to Counteract the Criminalization of Politics
- RPA Amendment: To counter increasing political criminalization, propose amending RPA 1951 to disqualify those with pending serious crime charges from contesting elections.
- Electoral Reforms: Electoral reform committees suggest state funding and strengthening Election Commission to counter black money and limit political criminalization.
- Enhanced Governance: Improve governance for voters to reduce dependence on criminal politicians.
- Transparency Effort: Election Commission’s candidate forms requiring disclosure of convictions and pending cases in nomination papers is a positive step if implemented effectively.
What is the Way Forward?
- It is evident that the Lily Thomas judgment has not brought about substantial shifts in politicians’ criminal inclinations.
- Influential ruling figures frequently manage to sidestep instant disqualification, while individuals encounter delays and Supreme Court involvement for stay orders.
- This calls for an amendment to Article 102, allowing Parliament to reintroduce and uphold Section 8(4), aligning legislative objectives with judicial interpretations.
- We need to protect legislators’ careers from abrupt disruptions due to hasty court orders.
References:
3. Live Law