Justice Patnaik said that courts should exercise their powers within the limits of the Constitution.
Former Supreme Court Judge AK Patnaik had said the judiciary has taken several good steps since he retired in 2014 and the courts should, while staying within their limits, seize opportunities to "clean" legislatures. Justice Patnaik was on the bench that gave the landmark judgment disqualifying MPs and MLAs from the date of conviction in a criminal case.
Speaking exclusively to NDTV's Ashish Kumar Bhargava on Friday, the judge also highlighted the live-streaming of cases as a great step forward by the judiciary, saying it brings in transparency and keeps both judges and lawyers in check.
Disqualification Ruling
Justice Patnaik was part of the two-judge bench, including SJ Mukhopadhyaya, which struck down a sub-section of the Representation of the People Act that allowed a lawmaker convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to a minimum of two years in prison to continue in office while his or her appeal was pending. In the 2013 judgment, which was based on a petition by lawyer and activist Lily Thomas, the court said such lawmakers would be disqualified immediately.
This ruling also played a role in Congress leader Rahul Gandhi's disqualification as a Lok Sabha MP in March.
On the reasoning behind the judgment, Justice Patnaik said, "In my opinion, Parliament is sovereign, it has got very vast powers, subject to the Constitution. Legislative assemblies in the state also have vast powers. Therefore, those who go as representatives to these bodies must have a clean reputation so that people will trust them."
"If someone has been convicted and gets disqualified under the Representation of the People Act, he should not remain in Parliament or the Assembly unless his conviction is stayed. But there was a provision allowing people to stay on if they appeal. I thought this is not correct, either you get your conviction stayed or you get out and come back elected if your conviction is set aside," the retired judge asserted.
Justice Patnaik said this is necessary to keep the legislative bodies clean.
"I think, to keep the Houses clean, people's representatives must go out when they are convicted and sentenced for more than two years. In my opinion, the judiciary must avail this kind of opportunity whenever it is possible to exercise power within the judicial domain, without crossing the limits in the Constitution, and clean up. I thought I could do it, I just cut down that provision. We had the power to strike down that provision if it violates the Constitution," he said.
What's Better, What Isn't
Justice Patnaik said live-streaming and the fact that Constitution benches are deciding key matters have been welcome developments.
"When there was no live-streaming of cases, the interactions between judges and lawyers sometimes used to get rough. Those interactions are now gone because both lawyers and judges are conscious that they are being watched," the judge said.
"Another good development is that, in my time, the number of Supreme Court judges was low, and the number of matters was so high that the chief justice could not constitute five-judge Constitution benches... It is very good that Constitution benches are hearing constitutional matters now, because the Supreme Court is basically the highest constitutional court," he added.
One development that the retired judge has not liked is long judgments, sometimes running into 400 pages. He said precise judgments will be appreciated and understood better.