Supreme Court sets aside order suspending conviction of Lakshadweep MP

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a Kerala high court order suspending the conviction of Lakshadweep Lok Sabha MP Mohammed Faizal in a 2009 attempt to murder case.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a Kerala high court order suspending the conviction of Lakshadweep Lok Sabha MP Mohammed Faizal in a 2009 attempt to murder case, but shielded the Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) lawmaker from immediate disqualification from the Lower House by clarifying that the benefit of the previous verdict would continue till the high court decides on the matter again in six weeks.

Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal.

The court described the high court’s reasoning as “erroneous” but said the six-week window would ensure that there is no “vacuum” with regard to representation of the Lakshadweep Lok Sabha constituency in Parliament.

On January 11, Faizal and three others were convicted by a sessions court in Kavaratti. He was sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and fined ₹1 lakh for attempting to kill Mohammed Salih, the son-in-law of late Union minister PM Sayeed, during the 2009 Lok Sabha elections.

On January 25, the high court stayed the conviction on the grounds that the disqualification of the MP would lead to fresh polls in Lakshadweep, further resulting in enormous expenses.

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 they can get the order of conviction suspended.

On Tuesday, a bench of justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan said the high court had adopted a “wrong approach” by relying on the fact that the conviction of the accused MP would result in his automatic disqualification from the House, leading to fresh elections, causing a huge expenditure on the public exchequer.

“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 bench said, as it set aside the order of the high court.

The bench directed the high court to consider the matter afresh within six weeks.

The top court noted that from January 25 till date, Faizal continued to remain an MP and discharge all his duties as member of Parliamentary standing committees. “Since we are asking the high court to reconsider the application within six weeks, it won’t be just and proper to create a vacuum,” the bench said.

“Since we are remanding the matter to the high court and in order to see that there is no vacuum created till the application for stay of conviction is disposed, the benefit of the high court order is extended to the respondent (MP) till then,” it added.

HT reached out to Faizal for a comment but did not get one immediately.

In its order on January 25, the high court said: “Not suspending the conviction of the accused (Faizal) is drastic, not only for the petitioner but also for the nation. A cumbersome process of election will have to be started and its exorbitant cost will have to be borne by the nation and indirectly by the people of the country.”

The top court did not agree with the high court’s reasoning.

“The said aspect need not have been the only aspect to be considered. The high court ought to have considered the application in proper perspective in view of the settled decisions of this court,” the bench said. It added: “On this short ground, we set aside the high court order and remand the matter for reconsideration.”

Appearing for Faizal, senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi cited a recent Supreme Court decision staying the conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a 2019 criminal defamation case.

Singhvi said the reasoning of the high court is correct as the automatic disqualification that attaches on conviction of a sitting legislator adversely affects not just the individual but the electors who appoint him. Singhvi urged the court not to allow Faizal to remain out of Parliament as he has been participating in the working of several Parliamentary committees.

Opposing any further relief to the MP, additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj, who appeared for the Lakshadweep administration, said: “Can he rely on getting benefit of a wrong order passed by the high court. Section 8(3) of RP Act talks of automatic disqualification? Let the high court consider the matter in two weeks. He does not deserve to get anything more.”

The victim in the case was also represented by senior advocate Menaka Guruswamy, who said that the high court order lost sight of the fact that the MP is convicted of serious offences and the office held by the accused should not be a consideration for staying his conviction. She further urged that the high court be asked to decide the matter within two weeks.

The bench refused to reduce the time, saying this would create pressure on the high court. “We have balanced the interests of both parties,” it said.

Reacting to the top court’s order, NCP chief spokesperson Mahesh Tapase said: “The matter is sub-judice. Faizal will seek appropriate legal remedy that will stand in the court of law.”