SC suspends conviction of a Congressman who intends to contest Assembly polls

Satya Prakash

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, November 16

The Supreme Court has suspended the conviction of a Rajasthan Congress leader who intended to contest the ensuing Assembly polls in the state.

A Bench of Justice R Banumathi and Justice Indira Banerjee suspended the sentence of Shivkant Nandwana after senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi pointed out that his criminal appeal was pending since 2015. Despite numerous applications filed for early hearing, his appeal could not be taken up by the sessions court, Singhvi submitted.

Nandwana had moved the top court after his petition for expeditious disposal of appeal pending before the sessions court was dismissed by the Rajasthan High Court. The case related to a crime allegedly committed by him on June 16, 2005.

Singhvi submitted that the accused had contested the by-election for the Member of Legislative Assembly from Kota (South) Assembly constituency and he was hopeful of getting a ticket for contesting the forthcoming Assembly elections in Rajasthan.

“The conviction of the petitioner in Criminal Regular Case No. 674/07 arising out of FIR No. 475/05 dated 16.06.2005 shall stand suspended until further orders,” the Bench ordered while issuing notice to the state of Rajasthan on his plea for early hearing.

Under the election law, a convicted personal can’t contest elections. But if the conviction is stayed or suspended, the ineligibility gets removed.

However, courts generally don’t pass such orders for suspension of sentence. In January 2007, the Supreme Court had stayed the conviction of cricketer-turned-BJP politician Navjot Singh Sidhu in a road rage death case paving his way for contesting the Amritsar Lok Sabha by-election necessitated by his resignation.

“It is not possible to hold, as a matter of rule, or, to lay down, that in order to prevent any person who has committed an offence from entering Parliament or the Legislative Assembly the order of conviction should not be suspended. The courts have to interpret the law as it stands and not on considerations which may be perceived to be morally more correct or ethical,” the top court had said in Sidhu’s case.