Supreme Court of India is hearing a PIL regarding
disqualification of those MPs and MLAs from contesting elections against whom
chargesheet has been filed in a criminal court and regarding fast-tracking
criminal cases involving politicians. This is Writ Petition (Civil) No.536/2011
titled as 'Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India'. (At present, a MP or
MLA, only on being convicted, ceases to be MP / MLA. There is no
disqualification incurred at the stage of being chargesheeted).
On 16.12.2013, Supreme Court requested the Law Commission of
India to expedite consideration of the two issues, namely, (1) whether
disqualification should be triggered upon conviction as it exists today or upon
framing of charges by the court or upon the presentation of the chargesheet by
the Investigating Officer under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
and (2) whether filing of false affidavits under Section 125A of the
Representation of People Act, 1951 should be a ground of disqualification? and,
if yes, what mode and mechanism needs to be provided for adjudication on the
veracity of the affidavit? In pursuance thereto, the Law Commission prepared
its recommendation in the form of 244th Report titled 'Electoral
Disqualifications'. In this Report, the Law Commission recommended that MP /
MLA should be disqualified on framing of charges against them by the court,
subject to certain conditions. This was considered by the Supreme Court in
hearing on 10th March 2014.
To ensure the maintenance of probity of public office, to
ensure conclusion of trial expeditiously, the Supreme Court on said day
directed that in relation to sitting MPs and MLAs who have charges framed
against them for the offences which are specified in Section 8(1), 8(2) and
8(3) of the RP Act, the trial shall be concluded as speedily and expeditiously
as may be possible and in no case later than one year from the date of the
framing of charge(s). In such cases, as far as possible, the trial shall be
conducted on a day-to-day basis. If for some extraordinary circumstances the
concerned court is being not able to conclude the trial within one year from
the date of framing of charge(s), such court would submit the report to the
Chief Justice of the respective High Court indicating special reasons for not
adhering to the above time limit and delay in conclusion of the trial. In such
situation, the Chief Justice may issue appropriate directions to the concerned
court extending the time for conclusion of the trial.
Click below for the Full text of Order dated 10th March
2014.
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/536201131032014p.txt
On 08.03.2016, the Three Judge Bench referred the matter to Five Judge Constitution Bench, particularly in view of Judgment dated 27th August 2014 by 5-Judge Bench in Manoj Narula vs Union of India 2014 (9) SCC 1. Thereafter, there is no further development in the matter, as seen from Supreme Court website.
Click below for the Full text of Order dated 8th March 2016.
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/querycheck_page2.asp
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/temp/536201131032014p.txt
On 08.03.2016, the Three Judge Bench referred the matter to Five Judge Constitution Bench, particularly in view of Judgment dated 27th August 2014 by 5-Judge Bench in Manoj Narula vs Union of India 2014 (9) SCC 1. Thereafter, there is no further development in the matter, as seen from Supreme Court website.
Click below for the Full text of Order dated 8th March 2016.
http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/casestatus_new/querycheck_page2.asp
Download free Android app for latest and important court
decisions. https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.sgsolicitors.indianlaw&hl=en
