Supreme Court adjourns plea on disqualification of convicted lawmakers
Summary:
- The Supreme Court has adjourned a plea filed by advocate Ashok Pandey regarding the disqualification of lawmakers convicted in criminal cases.
- Pandey argued that a member of Parliament or a state legislature should remain disqualified until acquitted from charges even if they lose office due to conviction.
- The petitioner requested a Constitution Bench to decide whether a stay of conviction would allow a disqualified individual to be chosen as a member of Parliament or state legislature.
- The Supreme Court had previously imposed a fine of Rs 1 lakh on Pandey for filing a “frivolous” PIL challenging the restoration of Lok Sabha membership of MP Mohammed Faizal.
- Rahul Gandhi, who was disqualified as an MP in March, had his membership restored by the Lok Sabha Secretariat following a Supreme Court stay order in August.
- Gandhi’s disqualification came after a Surat court convicted him and sentenced him to two years in prison for his remark linking the surname “Modi” to various businessmen.
Full Article:
“The matter is adjourned in terms of the letter circulated,” said a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra in view of the letter circulated by the petitioner– Ashok Pandey – seeking adjournment.
In his plea, Pandey contended that once a member of Parliament or a state legislature loses his office by operation of law, he will continue to be disqualified till he is acquitted from the charges levelled against him.
He prayed the Constitution Bench to decide as to whether on the basis of a stay of conviction, a person who has suffered disqualification by operation of law, will become qualified to be chosen as or for being, a member of Parliament or state legislature.
The Supreme Court on October 20 had imposed costs of Rs 1 lakh on the same petitioner for filing a similar “frivolous” PIL challenging restoration of Lok Sabha membership of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal.
“You are an advocate and filing such frivolous petitions. You should think ten times before filing such petitions,” had remarked the top court.
The very same advocate was earlier reprimanded by a bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud with a cost of Rs 5 lakh for filing a petition against the Chief Justice of Bombay High Court for allegedly not using “I” while being administered oath.
In August, the Supreme Court stayed the conviction of Rahul Gandhi in the ‘Modi surname’ defamation case, which had cost him his Lok Sabha membership, saying that no reasons were given by the trial judge for imposing the maximum punishment of two years in the case.
Following the apex court’s stay order, the Lok Sabha Secretariat restored his membership in Parliament on August 7.
Rahul Gandhi was disqualified as an MP in March this year after a Surat court convicted him and sentenced him to two years in prison for his “How come all thieves have Modi as the common surname” remark made during an election rally in Karnataka in April 2019.
His remark was interpreted as an attempt to draw an implicit connection between Prime Minister Narendra Modi and fugitive businessmen Nirav Modi and Lalit Modi.
–@DelhiBreakings.com
pds/ksk
Follow DelhiBreakings on Google News
Superfast News Coverage by DelhiBreakings.com team.
For Superfast national news and Delhi Breaking Stories visit us daily at https://delhibreakings.com
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.
