9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2005 (1) TMI 674 - SC - Indian LawsWhether an appellate judgment of a date subsequent to the date of election and having a bearing on conviction of a candidate and sentence of imprisonment passed on him would have the effect of wiping out disqualification from a back date if a person consequent upon his conviction for any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 2 years was disqualified from filing nomination and contesting the election on the dates of nomination and election? What is the meaning to be assigned to the expression A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 2 years as employed in sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951? Is it necessary that the term of imprisonment for not less than 2 years must be in respect of one single offence to attract the disqualification? What is the purport of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of RPA? Whether the protection against disqualification conferred by sub- section (4) on a member of a House would continue to apply though the candidate had ceased to be a member of Parliament or Legislature of a State on the date of nomination or election?
Issues Involved:
1. Effect of subsequent appellate judgment on disqualification. 2. Interpretation of "sentence to imprisonment for not less than 2 years" in Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. 3. Applicability of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Detailed Analysis: Issue 1: Effect of Subsequent Appellate Judgment on Disqualification The court examined whether an appellate judgment, subsequent to the date of election, which affects the conviction and sentence of a candidate, would retrospectively remove the disqualification. The court overruled previous judgments in Shri Manni Lal and Vidya Charan Shukla, which held that an appellate acquittal retrospectively wipes out the disqualification. The court clarified that the disqualification must be assessed as of the date of scrutiny of nominations and the date of election, not by subsequent events. The court emphasized that the judgment in an election petition is not a continuation of election proceedings but an independent judicial determination. Issue 2: Interpretation of "Sentence to Imprisonment for Not Less than 2 Years" The court interpreted the phrase "sentence to imprisonment for not less than 2 years" in Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. It held that the total length of imprisonment resulting from multiple sentences for different offenses, whether consecutive or concurrent, should be considered. The court rejected the argument that each individual sentence must be at least two years. The focus is on the aggregate period of imprisonment, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent criminalization of politics. Issue 3: Applicability of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 The court explained that sub-section (4) of Section 8 provides an exception for sitting members of Parliament or State Legislature, delaying the disqualification for three months or until the appeal/revision is decided. This exception aims to protect the functioning of the House and prevent disruptions due to immediate disqualification. However, this protection ceases once the House is dissolved or the member's term ends. The court held that treating former members differently from other candidates would be arbitrary and violate Article 14 of the Constitution. Conclusion: 1. Effect of Subsequent Appellate Judgment: Disqualification must be determined based on the date of scrutiny of nominations and the date of election. Subsequent appellate judgments do not retrospectively remove disqualification. 2. Interpretation of "Sentence to Imprisonment for Not Less than 2 Years": The aggregate period of imprisonment from multiple sentences should be considered for disqualification under Section 8(3). 3. Applicability of Sub-section (4) of Section 8: The exception for sitting members ceases once the House is dissolved or the member's term ends. Former members are treated the same as other candidates. Result: - C.A. No. 8213/2001: The election of the respondent from No.14 Kuthuparamba Assembly Constituency was set aside due to disqualification. - C.A. No. 6691/2002: The election of the respondent from 37-Bahadurgarh Assembly Constituency was declared void due to disqualification.
|
