The Allahabad High Court’s decision to stay the conviction and life sentence of a man convicted of murder, partly to enable him to contest next year’s Uttar Pradesh assembly election, raises concerns over the limits of judicial discretion in granting such relief to convicts in heinous crimes. A division bench of justices Siddharth and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi granted relief to former BJP leader Nandlal Rai alias Babloo Rai and his co-accused Sheshnath Sharma, convicted of shooting Pramod Kumar Nigam dead
The Allahabad High Court’s decision to stay the conviction and life sentence of a man convicted of murder, partly to enable him to contest next year’s Uttar Pradesh assembly election, raises concerns over the limits of judicial discretion in granting such relief to convicts in heinous crimes. A division bench of justices Siddharth and Vinai Kumar Dwivedi granted relief to former BJP leader Nandlal Rai alias Babloo Rai and his co-accused Sheshnath Sharma, convicted of shooting Pramod Kumar Nigam dead in Varanasi in January 2017. Rai told the court he wished to contest the 2027 polls as an independent candidate or, if possible, on a BJP ticket. The high court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Afjal Ansari Vs State of Uttar Pradesh, observing that politicians have a special duty towards their constituents and could lose the opportunity to contest elections if their convictions were not stayed.
But the distinction between the two cases warrants closer scrutiny. Ansari was a sitting MP when he approached the Court after his conviction under the UP Gangsters Act led to his disqualification from the Lok Sabha. The Court’s majority considered the irreversible consequences for both the legislator and his constituency, alongside the specific circumstances of his case, including the basis of the prosecution and his criminal antecedents. The decision was not a blanket endorsement of staying convictions to facilitate poll participation. Indeed, the Court has repeatedly held that staying a conviction is an exception, not the rule, and must be exercised with great circumspection. The gravity of the offence, criminal record and wider social impact are among the factors requiring consideration.
The right to contest polls is undoubtedly valuable. But democratic rights also include the electorate’s right to choose representatives within the framework of the law, which disqualifies persons convicted and sentenced to imprisonment of two years or more. A judicial approach that treats electoral ambition as sufficient reason for relief risks diluting this statutory safeguard and inviting its misuse, particularly in murder and such heinous cases.
One Subscription.
Get 360° coverage—from daily headlines
to 100 year archives.
Archives
HT App & Website