A Lawmaker Stands Disqualified If Conviction Not Stayed: Top Court

A lawmaker whose conviction in a criminal case has not been stayed by an appellate court would stand disqualified from the membership of the house, the Supreme Court said on Monday.

A bench headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra also reserved its verdict on a plea filed by non-profit group Lok Prahari that alleged the 2013 verdict of the top court in the Lilly Thomas case was being flouted by MPs, MLAs and MLCs, who continue to hold their memberships even after convictions in criminal cases.

The Supreme Court on July 10, 2013, had struck down section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act that gave a convicted lawmaker the power to remain in office on the ground that appeals have been filed within three months of conviction.

The NGO, in its fresh plea filed through its secretary SN Shukla, said the disqualification of a lawmaker takes place immediately after the conviction and the membership cannot be revived with retrospective effect by an appellate court by staying the conviction.

Mr Shukla, the former chief secretary of Uttar Pradesh, told the bench, which also comprised Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud, that the 2013 verdict barred the appellate courts from staying the conviction of a lawmaker.

"Please show us the passages (in the judgement) where it is said that no stay will be granted on the petition against the conviction," the bench said. "The law is clear that a person, who has been convicted and has not got a stay on the conviction, his or her membership will go," it said, adding that appellate courts are not barred from granting stay on convictions.

"If stay is there then he or she (lawmaker) can participate in the house proceedings. If there was no stay then he or she is disqualified," the bench said.

It also said that appellate courts rarely stay the conviction of the lawmakers in criminal cases.

The top court had held that chargesheeted MPs and MLAs, on conviction for offences, will be immediately disqualified from holding membership of the house without being given three months' time for appeal, as was the case earlier.

The court, however, had then said that its decision would not apply to convicted MPs, MLAs and MLCs who have already filed their appeals in higher courts before pronouncement of the verdict.