SC Rejects Govt. Review Petition on Criminal Netas

I begin with my earlier observation made immediately after the historic judgment of the Supreme Court of India on July 10, 2013 on convicted politicians elected to Parliament and State Assemblies. I had commented in my earlier blog that History would never forgive the government of the day in particular and the law makers (Members of Parliament) in general should they try to nullify the Supreme Court verdict on the matter. The SC ruled that any elected Member of Parliament and State Assemblies if convicted by a trial court for a crime with sentence of two years or more imprisonment would cease to be member of the House to which he or she was elected even if a review petition against the conviction lies in higher court.

As feared, the UPA Government moved a review petition before the Supreme Court challenging the earlier verdict. The Government defended its decision saying that it received petitions from all political parties to challenge the verdict on disqualification of elected representatives.

On Wednesday, September 4, 2013, a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising justice A K Patnaik and justice S J Mukhopadhyaya rejected the government’s petition saying that, “Even the government and others appear to agree with the interpretation we have given in this case”.

However, the apex court agreed to give a fresh look to the second petition of the government seeking review of the judgment that barred a jailed politician from contesting elections since a jailed person is not entitled to cast vote.

One wonders what makes the government or for that matter political parties to come in defence of criminal elements in politics. Only recently, a big scam on highly inflated air fare claimed by some MPs has come to light. There are as many as 176 MPs who are facing criminal cases in different courts. There is a police report in Delhi that many MPs flats and residences in Lutyen’s Bungalow Zone in New Delhi run tent houses and other sundry trade which is not only illegal but also a security threat to the occupants. There are instances when MPs and MLAs have claimed TA (travelling allowances) for a tour in which they were present in more than one place at the particular day and date. Such acts of the elected representatives only undermine the institution of Parliament and State Legislature besides eroding the values of democracy.

In its earlier judgment on July 10, 2013, the Supreme Court had struck down, “Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act which allowed a Member of Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies to retain their Membership of the House they were elected to for three months to enable them to file an appeal in the higher court. The Act also allowed the Members convicted of crime by trial court till their appeal was adjudicated by the higher court”.

The government is unlikely to accept the verdict on the criminal politicians since it has decided to move amendments to the relevant sections of the Representation of the People Act in Parliament to nullify the apex court verdict. It is again a sad commentary on the government who is determined to protect and in the process encourage criminal elements in politics to occupy the temples of democracy – Parliament and State Assemblies.

~R. K. Sinha