Lily Thomas v. Union of India
Supreme Court of India, 10 July 2013, 2 judges
Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which let convicted sitting MPs and MLAs keep their seats pending appeal or revision, was declared ultra vires the Constitution, prospectively from the judgment.
Facts
Sub-sections (1) to (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 disqualify a person convicted of specified offences from the date of conviction. Sub-section (4) provided that for a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature the disqualification would not take effect for three months, or, if an appeal or revision was filed in that time, until it was decided. Lily Thomas and Lok Prahari filed writ petitions as Public Interest Litigations asking the Court to declare Section 8(4) ultra vires the Constitution.
Questions before the Court
- Did Parliament have power under the Constitution to enact Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, deferring the disqualification of convicted sitting legislators?
- Can the source of that power be found in Article 246(1) read with Entry 97 of List I and Article 248, apart from Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e)?
- Should the declaration affect sitting members whose appeals or revisions were already pending?
What the Court held
- The power to make laws on disqualification for membership of Parliament or a State Legislature is located only in Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e), not in Article 246(1) read with Entry 97 of List I or Article 248.
- Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) require one law laying down the same disqualifications for being chosen as, and for continuing as, a member. Parliament cannot provide different disqualifications for sitting members.
- Under Articles 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a), a member's seat falls vacant as soon as the member becomes disqualified, so Parliament cannot defer the date on which the disqualification takes effect. Section 8(4) is therefore ultra vires the Constitution.
- A convicted member is not remediless: if the appellate court stays the conviction under Section 389 CrPC, or the High Court does so under Section 482, the disqualification does not operate from the date of the stay.
- The declaration applies prospectively. Sitting members already protected by Section 8(4) through pending appeals or revisions are not affected, but those convicted after the judgment are not saved by filing an appeal or revision.
Why it matters
The judgment strikes down the protection that allowed convicted MPs and MLAs to keep their seats during an appeal. It holds that disqualifications for being chosen and for continuing as a member must be the same, and that a seat falls vacant on the date of disqualification. Having struck down the provision for want of legislative power, the Court did not decide the Article 14 challenge, and it limited the declaration to future convictions.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“We also hold that the provisions of Article 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution expressly prohibit Parliament to defer the date from which the disqualification will come into effect in case of a sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature. Parliament, therefore, has exceeded its powers conferred by the Constitution in enacting sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act and accordingly sub- section (4) of Section 8 of the Act is ultra vires the Constitution.”
“Accordingly, once a person who was a member of either House of Parliament or House of the State Legislature becomes disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament under Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution, his seat automatically falls vacant by virtue of Articles 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution and Parliament cannot make a provision as in sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act to defer the date on which the disqualification of a sitting member will have effect and prevent his seat becoming vacant on account of the disqualification under Article 102(1)(e) or Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution.”
“However, if any sitting member of Parliament or a State Legislature is convicted of any of the offences mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act and by virtue of such conviction and/or sentence suffers the disqualifications mentioned in sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act after the pronouncement of this judgment, his membership of Parliament or the State Legislature, as the case may be, will not be saved by sub- section (4) of Section 8 of the Act which we have by this judgment declared as ultra vires the Constitution notwithstanding that he files the appeal or revision against the conviction and /or sentence.”
“Parliament thus does not have the power under Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution to make different laws for a person to be disqualified for being chosen as a member and for a person to be disqualified for continuing as a member of Parliament or the State Legislature.”
Provisions interpreted
- Section 8(4), Representation of the People Act, 1951
- Article 102(1)(e), Constitution
- Article 191(1)(e), Constitution
- Article 101(3)(a), Constitution
- Article 190(3)(a), Constitution
Case and bench
- Parties
- Lily Thomas v. Union of India
- Case
- Writ Petition (Civil) No. 490 of 2005 with Writ Petition (Civil) No. 231 of 2005
- Decided
- 10 July 2013
- Bench
- A.K. Patnaik, Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya
- Opinions
- Unanimous judgment written by A.K. Patnaik, J., with Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, J.
Questions on this case
5 questions in live Law Maker papers mention this case. A few from free papers:
Question 1, Legal Maxims & Jurisprudence Practice Set 1
In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), what did the Supreme Court hold about sitting MPs and MLAs convicted of offences attracting disqualification?
- A. Disqualification takes effect only when the appeal is finally decided
- B. Sitting members are protected until the end of the House's term
- C. Section 8(4) RPA was struck down, so disqualification runs from conviction
- D. Disqualification arises only on a second conviction for any offence
Show the answer
C. Section 8(4) RPA was struck down, so disqualification runs from conviction
In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which had protected sitting legislators who filed an appeal within three months, so disqualification under Section 8(1) to (3) takes effect from the date of conviction.