The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to entertain the Centre’s plea seeking a review of its verdict that MPs and MLAs would be disqualified upon being convicted in a criminal case and being sentenced to at least two years behind bars. The apex court, however, agreed to hear the Centre’s petition seeking review of its judgment barring arrested persons from contesting elections.
Rejecting the first review petition, a bench of justices A.K. Patnaik and S.J. Mukhopadhyay said the Parliament is free to amend law if it does not agree with interpretation of law given by the Supreme Court. “Parliament frames laws in the manner they like. If we make interpretation of law and if it is not accepted by it (Parliament), its again for Parliament to enact a law,” it said. “There is no error on the face of the law but there can be on interpretation. We found that there are lacunae in law in this regard which can be considered by the legislatures,” the bench said referring to its July 10 judgement that legislatures would be disqualified as members of the House upon being convicted in a criminal case and being awarded minimum punishment of two years imprisonment. While agreeing to have a fresh look at the issue of arrested persons prohibited from contesting elections, the bench said this matter was not argued well keeping in view the Constitutional provision. It said it will consider the issue of disqualification by taking into account Article 102 of the Constitution which deals with disqualification of membership as well as the provisions contained in the electoral law.
The Centre contended that protecting convicted MPs and MLAs from disqualification during pendency of appeal is necessary “to ensure that governance is not adversely impacted”. The apex court had on July 10 held that an MP or MLA convicted of any offence attracting a punishment of two years and above will be disqualified and a person, who is in jail or in police custody except preventive custody, cannot contest election to legislative bodies.