E-Paper
SC revives stay on conviction of Lakshadweep MP in 2009 attempt to murder case
A bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol passed the order while hearing an appeal filed by the MP challenging the October 3 ruling of Kerala HC
The Supreme Court on Monday revived its order staying the conviction of Lakshadweep Member of Parliament Mohammad Faizal in an attempt to murder case, and stalled a recent order of the Kerala high court on October 3 that refused to stay the conviction.
A bench of justices Hrishikesh Roy and Sanjay Karol passed the order while hearing an appeal filed by the MP challenging the October 3 ruling.
Faizal, belonging to the Nationalist Congress Party, was one of the people convicted in a 2009 attempt to murder incident involving a Congress worker. He was convicted by a sessions court in Kavaratti on January 11 and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 10 years.
The Kerala high court on January 25 stayed the order of conviction that allowed the Lakshadweep MP to retain his parliamentary seat. This order was challenged by the Lakshadweep administration before the top court, which referred the matter back to the high court for reconsideration. While passing this order on August 22, the top court stayed the conviction for a period of six weeks till the HC decided the matter.
On Monday, senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the MP told the court that the top court protected him from disqualification throughout the proceedings in the high court. He further stated that the incident in question is of April 2009 and the victims in the criminal case against him had earlier assaulted him as part of a political rivalry. That case was decided separately, Sibal added, and the assailants were convicted by the trial court.
The top court noted these facts and issued notice on Faizal’s petition seeking response of the UT of Lakshadweep and the victims who had filed the criminal case against the MP, who was then a political worker.
Sibal pointed out that Faizal’s tenure as MP will expire in May and due to the order of disqualification passed against him by the Lok Sabha secretariat pursuant to the October 3 decision, his constituency will go unrepresented in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections.
The bench directed, “in the meantime, the operation of order of October 3 is stated. In consequence, the interim order of August 22 passed by this Court is made operational. List after four weeks.”
Additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj, appearing for the UT administration, opposed any further stay of conviction as he pointed out that the August 22 order was passed for a limited period of six weeks and ended with the order of the HC order.
The August 22 order passed by a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan faulted the high court for adopting a “wrong approach” as it relied on the fact that the accused being a member of parliament, his conviction will result in automatic disqualification leading to fresh elections and a huge expenditure on the public exchequer. The top court felt that the HC failed to consider the stay of conviction on the merits of the case and directed the matter to be considered afresh.
“We find the high court has not considered the true position of law in the light of various decisions rendered by this Court on the manner in which a stay of conviction application is to be considered,” the order had said.
At the same time, the top court observed, “Since we are asking the HC to reconsider the application within six weeks, it won’t be just and proper to create a vacuum.”
The court had noted that from January 25 till Augst 22, Faizal continued to remain MP and in that capacity discharged all his duties as member of Parliamentary standing committees.
“Since we are remanding the matter to the HC and in order to see that there is no vacuum created till the application for stay of conviction is disposed, the benefit of the HC order is extended to the respondent (MP) till then,” it said.
Under Section 8(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act 1951, a sitting legislator who is convicted for an offence and sentenced to a punishment of two or more years stands disqualified from the date of conviction and for a further period of six years unless he/she can get the order of conviction suspended.
The victim in the case was represented by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who informed the court that the MP was convicted of serious offences and the injuries sustained were grievous in nature.
