Daily Current Affairs : 23-August-2023
In recent news, Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act 1951 has gained attention due to the disqualification of Rahul Gandhi, a prominent member of the Congress party. This section pertains to the disqualification of sitting legislators in the event of their conviction and sentence. Let’s delve into the details of Section 8(4), its historical context, the landmark Lily Thomas case judgment, criticisms, and the Supreme Court’s recent observations.
Understanding Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act
Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act (RPA) outlines the provisions for disqualification of sitting legislators. According to this section, disqualification takes effect only “after three months have elapsed” from the date of conviction. This window allows legislators to file an appeal against the sentence within this period before the High Court. During this three-month period, the disqualification is put on hold. The final outcome of the appeal determines whether the disqualification will be upheld or not.
Landmark Judgment: Lily Thomas v Union of India
The pivotal ruling in the 2013 case of ‘Lily Thomas v Union of India’ brought Section 8(4) into question. The Supreme Court declared this section unconstitutional, asserting that Parliament lacks the authority to create special provisions in favor of sitting legislators. The court’s rationale was that Article 102 of the Constitution treats candidates and sitting members equally regarding disqualification. The court highlighted that Article 102(1) does not differentiate between sitting members and candidates in matters of disqualification. Consequently, the court concluded that Section 8(4) was legally unsustainable and went against the Constitution.
Critique of the Lily Thomas Judgment
While the Lily Thomas judgment aimed to ensure equality between candidates and sitting members, it drew criticism for its potential impact on the legislative careers of sitting lawmakers. Critics argue that instant disqualification upon conviction and sentence could harm their entire legislative journey without adequate recourse. This is because the legal system often has delays in dealing with appeals and revisions. Additionally, politicians with significant influence could potentially manipulate the system to their advantage, stalling convictions and saving themselves from immediate disqualification.
Restoration and Protection of Section 8(4)
To mitigate the potential negative consequences of the Lily Thomas judgment, calls have been made to restore and constitutionally protect Section 8(4). Advocates of this perspective believe that this section provides a buffer for legislators against sudden upheavals caused by court orders. Protecting the careers of India’s legislators is essential, and many argue that a balance should be struck between ensuring swift justice and maintaining the integrity of the legislative process.
Recent Supreme Court Observations
Recent developments have brought attention to the practical implications of disqualification. The Supreme Court stayed the conviction of a Congress leader in a criminal defamation case, highlighting the importance of fair sentencing. The court noted that disqualification not only impacts the individual but also the electorate they represent in Parliament. This observation underscores the intricate connection between the legal proceedings, the representation of the people, and the broader democratic framework.
Important Points:
Understanding Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act:
- Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act deals with the disqualification of sitting legislators upon conviction and sentence.
- It provides a three-month window for legislators to appeal their sentence before disqualification takes effect.
Landmark Judgment: Lily Thomas v Union of India:
- In 2013, the Supreme Court declared Section 8(4) unconstitutional.
- The court’s rationale was that it’s not permissible to create special provisions favoring sitting legislators as Article 102 treats candidates and sitting members equally.
- Article 102(1) doesn’t differentiate between sitting members and candidates regarding disqualification.
Critique of the Lily Thomas Judgment:
- Critics argue that instant disqualification upon conviction can harm the legislative careers of sitting lawmakers without due process.
- The legal system’s delays in dealing with appeals and revisions can exacerbate the issue.
- Influential politicians may manipulate the system to stall convictions and avoid immediate disqualification.
Restoration and Protection of Section 8(4):
- Calls have been made to restore and constitutionally protect Section 8(4) to balance swift justice with the protection of legislators’ careers.
Recent Supreme Court Observations:
- The Supreme Court highlighted that disqualification not only affects the individual but also the electorate they represent in Parliament.
- Fair sentencing and due process are critical considerations in disqualification cases.
Why In News
Recently, Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act 1951 gained media attention due to its application in the case of Rahul Gandhi from the Congress party, resulting in his disqualification. In accordance with Section 8(3) of the same act, the disqualification of a sitting legislator is triggered as soon as a court issues a conviction and sentence.
MCQs about Impact of Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act 1951
-
In the ‘Lily Thomas v Union of India’ case, why did the Supreme Court declare Section 8(4) unconstitutional?
A. It was biased in favor of candidates.
B. It violated the principle of swift justice.
C. Article 102 treats candidates and sitting members equally.
D. It infringed on the rights of political parties.
-
What is a major criticism of the Lily Thomas judgment?
A. It allows instant disqualification upon conviction.
B. It provides too much power to influential politicians.
C. It favors candidates over sitting members.
D. It speeds up the appeal process.
-
According to recent Supreme Court observations, what does disqualification affect apart from the individual?
A. The legal system.
B. The political party’s reputation.
C. The electorate represented in Parliament.
D. The constitutionality of laws.
Boost up your confidence by appearing our Weekly Current Affairs Multiple Choice Questions
