Home / Politics / The verdict of SC tomorrow on the rebirth of the members of the legislators in case of conviction | India News

The verdict of SC tomorrow on the rebirth of the members of the legislators in case of conviction | India News

New Delhi: The Supreme Court is likely to stay the verdict on whether a legislator who was disqualified by a court of appeal and who is a member of its stimulus committee.

A three-judge court headed by Chief Justice Dipak Mishra who reserved his order on the plea filed by the NGO Lok Prahari on July 23 will be the verdict

While reserving the verdict on the NGO's plea, the Supreme Court declared that a legislator, whose conviction in a criminal case was not suspended by a Court of Appeal, will be excluded from the members of the House.

The NGO had alleged that the 2013 verdict of the Supreme Court of the Lilly Thomas case was flouted by MPs, MPs and MLCs, who continue to be members even after having been sentenced in criminal cases.

She stated that the challenge of a legislator comes immediately after the conviction and that the membership can not be restored retroactively by an appellate court.

The NGO added that the verdict of 2013 had prevented courts of appeal from remaining in a legislator's conviction.

The court then stated that the law clearly states that a person who has been convicted and who has not been suspended after being declared will go and that the courts will not. Appeal will not be hindered on convictions.

He said that if the stay was there, he (the legislator) could participate in the proceedings in the House and if he had no stay, then he was disqualified.

[1 945 9 002] On July 10, 2013, the Supreme Court struck down subsection 8 (4) of the Representation of Persons Act (RPA), which gave a convicted legislator the power to remain in power on appeal. been filed in three months of conviction.

"The only question concerns the turning point of subsection 8 (4) of the RPA and we consider that it is ultra vires and that the forfeiture takes place from the date of the conviction", said the court in its 2013 Verdict

The Supreme Court ruled that MPs and MPs convicted of offenses would not be allowed to sit in the House without three months in which to appeal, as was the case before .

However, the court stated that its decision would not apply to MPs and MPs or sentenced MLCs who have already filed their appeals in the superior courts before the verdict is rendered.

The verdict removed the discrimination between an ordinary person and an elected legislator, who enjoys protection under the law on PR.

Under section 8 (3) of the RPA, a person convicted of an offense and sentenced to two years will be disqualified for that period and six years after release. But Article 8 (4) stipulates that a legislator can not be disqualified for three months from the conviction if that period during which he lodges an appeal is brought before a higher court.

The 2013 Supreme Court verdict filed petitions filed by a lawyer Lily Thomas and an NGO, Lok Prahari, claiming the provisions of the RPA. among other things, expressly prohibit criminals from registering as electors or becoming a member or deputy.

PILs had stated that certain sections of the RPA allowed convicted legislators to continue to perform their duties while their appeals were pending and that they constituted "criminalization." discriminatory and encouraging policy ".

About admin

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *