Read
Listen
Watch
Play
Find
Mail
  • Quotes

  • NAVs

  • News

  • Messages

  • Opinions

  • Notices

  • Videos

  Post a Message | Explore Forums  |  Browse Stock Messages  |  Hot Discussions  | Top rated Messages  | Top Boarders
Search: Messages    Stock    Boarder
 
Ads by Google
Moneycontrol.com >> Message Board >> View Messages >> Politics
   You are here :     Moneycontrol     MMB    General      Politics                         Most active discussions of 2006 , 2007 & 2008
Dirty Politics (1)   19-Jul-08 10:35Tracked by (0)  
Posted by:   zoombusiness on ( 19-Jul-08 10:35 )
Although they are said to be receiving overtures from both sides, three of the six jailed MPs legally have little incentive to look beyond the term of the 14th Lok Sabha.

Umakant Yadav, Ateeq Ahmad and Afzal Ansari can afford to weigh their options with an eye on the next election as they are still only facing trial. On the other hand, Pappu Yadav, Suraj Bhan and Mohammad Shahabuddin have already been convicted over the last year or so for serious offences like murder and kidnapping. The convicted MPs have been able to retain their seats because section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act saves them from being disqualified till each of their appeals is "disposed of by the court".

The benefit of section 8(4), however, comes with a short expiry date. Or so the Supreme Court interpreted three years ago in K Prabhakaran versus P Jayaraman when it said that a convicted MP could avert disqualification "only so long as the House continues to exist and the person continues to be a member of a House. The saving ceases to apply if the House is dissolved or the person ceases to be a member of the House".

This means that once the 14th Lok Sabha is dissolved, the three convicted MPs cannot contest elections again till their appeals are upheld or, alternatively, they serve out their sentences and wait for a further six years to get over the period of disqualification.

The 2005 judgment limiting the benefit of section 8(4) to the House that exists at the time of conviction has reversed the earlier interpretation under which convicted legislators could contest election after election as their appeal proceedings dragged on in the courts.

The rationale behind the cap imposed by the 2005 verdict is that section 8(4), which saves legislators from being disqualified midway through their tenure, would otherwise be vulnerable to the charge of discriminating against candidates who are not already members.

The apex court held that the section is not meant "to confer an advantage on any person; the purpose is to protect the House". Once a House has been dissolved and the convicted person has ceased to be a member, then "on the date of filing the nomination there is no difference between him and any other candidate who was not such a member".

From the viewpoint of convicted MPs, the efficacy of section 8(4) is evident from the dramatic turnaround in Shibu Soren's case in the tenure of this very House. Despite his exit from the government in the wake of a murder conviction, Soren, having retained his seat in the Lok Sabha, is now in a position to stage a comeback following his acquittal by the appellate court.
TOI-

Feedback

CNBC TV18 CNN IBN CNBC Awaaz IBN 7 IBN LOKMAT

More from General

Poll 

Has your confidence in equities been shattered?

Yes No
To SMS your queries to us Type YS < Your query > SMS to 52622
Stocks to be discussed next:
  Suzlon  |   RIL  |  Tata Steel  |   Tata Mot  |   ICICI Bk  | Balrampur Chini  
 view all queries »