Law Maker

Lok Prahari v. Election Commission of India

Supreme Court of India · 26 September 2018 · 3 judges

Once an appellate court stays a conviction under Section 389 CrPC, the disqualification under Section 8(1), (2) and (3) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 does not operate; the writ petition was dismissed.

Facts

A former member of the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly was convicted under Sections 353, 504 and 506 of the Penal Code and sentenced to imprisonment. In appeal, the District Court stayed both the execution of the sentence and the conviction. The petitioner, a registered society, filed a PIL in the Allahabad High Court seeking a declaration that the MLA stood disqualified despite the stay; it was dismissed. The petitioner then moved the Supreme Court under Article 32, contending that the seat falls vacant from the date of conviction, that a later stay cannot revive membership retrospectively, and that Section 389 CrPC allows only a stay of sentence, not of conviction. It also sought directions for quick transmission of conviction orders. The Election Commission supported the first prayer; the Union opposed the petition.

Questions before the Court

  1. Does an appellate court have power under Section 389 CrPC to stay a conviction, and not only the execution of the sentence?
  2. Does the disqualification under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 continue to operate after the conviction has been stayed by the appellate court?
  3. Should directions be issued for prompt communication of convictions of sitting legislators?

What the Court held

  • Since Rama Narang v Ramesh Narang it is settled that the appellate court has power, in an appropriate case, to stay the conviction under Section 389 CrPC besides suspending the sentence.
  • The power to stay a conviction is an exception. Before it is exercised, the appellate court must be made aware of the consequences that will follow if the conviction is not stayed.
  • Once the conviction is stayed pending appeal, the disqualification under sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1951, which flows from the conviction and operates through Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e), does not take or remain in effect.
  • No direction could issue to the Department of Justice to instruct High Court Registrars; the Election Commission had already issued instructions for reporting convictions within seven days and was sufficiently empowered. The petition was dismissed.

Why it matters

The judgment restates, on the basis of Rama Narang, Ravikant S Patil and Lily Thomas (2013), that a stay of conviction by the appellate court suspends the disqualification of a legislator under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1951. It rejects the argument that the seat falls vacant irrevocably on conviction, and notes that the power to stay a conviction guards against prejudice from convictions on untenable or frivolous grounds.

In the Court's words

Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.

“These decisions have settled the position on the effect of an order of an appellate court staying a conviction pending the appeal. Upon the stay of a conviction under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., the disqualification under Section 8 will not operate. The decisions in Ravi Kant Patil and Lily Thomas conclude the issue. Since the decision in Rama Narang, it has been well-settled that the appellate court has the power, in an appropriate case, to stay the conviction under Section 389 besides suspending the sentence.”
Page 13 of the judgment
“Moreover, it is untenable that the disqualification which ensues from a conviction will operate despite the appellate court having granted a stay of the conviction. The authority vested in the appellate court to stay a conviction ensures that a conviction on untenable or frivolous grounds does not operate to cause serious prejudice.”
Page 14 of the judgment

Provisions interpreted

Case and bench

Parties
Lok Prahari, through its General Secretary S.N. Shukla v. Election Commission of India
Case
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 330 of 2016
Decided
26 September 2018
Bench
Dipak Misra, A M Khanwilkar, Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
Opinions
Unanimous. Judgment of the Court delivered by Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J.