Supreme Court to hear on Tuesday disqualified Lakshadweep MP Md Faizal's plea for reinstatement

Tribune News Service

Satya Prakash

New Delhi, March 27

The Supreme Court will take up on Tuesday a petition filed by suspended Lakshadweep MP Md Faizal seeking reinstatement of his Lok Sabha membership on the grounds that his conviction and 10-year sentence in an attempt-to-murder case has been stayed by the Kerala High Court.

A Bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud on Monday agreed to hear Faisal's petition on March 28 after senior advocate AM Singhvi pointed out that the top court had refused to stay the high court's order.

"Even though the Supreme Court refuses to stay the High Court order which set aside the conviction, he has still not been reinstated in the house," Singhvi told the Bench.

The Bench ordered that his plea for reinstatement should be tagged with a petition filed by the Union Territory of Lakshadweep challenging the order of the Kerala High Court suspending the conviction and sentence of Faizal which was already listed for hearing on Tuesday.

Faizal's case would work as a precedent for Rahul Gandhi who was disqualified as an MP of the Lok Sabha last week.

Faizal has moved the Supreme Court against the Lok Sabha Secretariat for not withdrawing its notification disqualifying him as an MP following his conviction and 10-year sentence in an attempt to murder case, which was later stayed by the Kerala High Court.

A notification issued by the Lok Sabha Secretariat on January 13 had declared him disqualified from the membership of Lok Sabha from January 11, the date on which he was convicted by a sessions court in Kavaratti and sentenced to 10-year imprisonment.

Pointing out that his conviction was stayed by the Kerala High Court on January 25, Faizal submitted that the Lok Sabha Secretariat failed to withdraw the notification despite his conviction having been stayed.

Faizal’s case is being keenly observed as it could work as a precedent in the case of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi who was disqualified as a Lok Sabha MP on Friday, a day after a Gujarat court convicted him in a defamation case and sentenced him to two-year imprisonment.

"The petitioner is constrained to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this court under Article 32 of the Constitution, against the unlawful inaction on the part of the respondent, Secretary General of the Lok Sabha Secretariat in not withdrawing the notification dated January 13, 2023, whereby the petitioner was disqualified from his membership of Parliament from the Lakshadweep parliamentary constituency," Faizal submitted.

He contended that the respondent's inaction is in the "teeth of the settled law" that disqualification incurred by a Member of Parliament (MP) under section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, ceases to operate if the conviction is stayed by the appellate court under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

"It is pertinent to note that the Election Commission, by taking note of the correct legal position, recalled the by-election press note dated January 18, 2023," he said in his petition.

The Supreme Court had on February 20 refused to stay the Kerala High Court’s verdict. “We are not inclined to stay the High Court’s order. That would be heard,” a Bench of Justice KM Joseph and Justice BV Nagarathna had said.

The top court had, however, issued notice on a petition filed by Union Territory of Lakshadweep challenging the order of the Kerala High Court suspending the conviction and sentence of Faizal. Apart from the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, the prosecuting agency and the original complainant in the case have also approached the top court.

Faizal’s disqualification had happened in view of the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Lily Thomas case that paved the way for immediate disqualification of convicted lawmakers as it struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act.

The petitions challenging the Kerala High Court’s order to stay Faizal’s conviction would be taken up on March 28.

The stay was required to avoid a costly re-election and also considering the fact that the candidate so elected would only have a term of 15 months, the high court had said, terming the case as “rare” and involving “an exceptional situation warranting suspension of conviction”.

The High Court had rejected the Centre’s contention that disqualification would take effect immediately on conviction and that Parliament membership cannot be revived even if the court issued a stay.

About The Author

Tribune News Service

The Tribune News Service brings you the latest news, analysis and insights from the region, India and around the world. Follow the Tribune News Service for a wide-ranging coverage of events as they unfold, with perspective and clarity.