The Centre’s move to promulgate the Representation of
the People (Amendment and Validation) ordinance has been challenged in
the Supreme Court.
In a public interest writ
petition, advocate Manohar Lal Sharma referred to the Union Cabinet’s
nod on Tuesday Sep 24,2013 for promulgating the ordinance and said it was being done
with the sole object of nullifying the July 10,2013 SC judgment
which put an end to criminalisation of politics.
Petitioner Advocate Manohal Lal Sharma has urged the court to declare the proposed ordinance “arbitrary and mala fide”
and against the basic structure of the Constitution. He asked: “Whether
Article 123 could be invoked to take the ordinance route to serve the
political and vested interests of the political parties.” The petitioner
said the ordinance route was being misused by the government for
political gains
SC Ruling on July 10,2013
The SC had held that charge-sheeted MPs and MLAs, on conviction
for the offences, would be immediately disqualified from holding the
membership of the House without being given three months’ time for
appeal.
The court struck down as unconstitutional
Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act that allowed
convicted lawmakers a 3-month period for filing an appeal at the
higher court and getting a stay of the conviction and the sentence
Union Cabinet's Proposed Ordinance
The Union Cabinet on Tuesday Sep 24,2013 negating a SC Ruling on July 10,2013, cleared
an ordinance that will protect convicted MPs and MLAs from immediate
disqualification, provided their appeal against the conviction and
sentence is admitted by a higher court within 90 days, and both the
conviction and the sentence are stayed. Till the matter is settled, the
MP or the MLA, the ordinance says, will not be entitled to vote nor draw
a salary and allowances, but may continue to participate in the
proceedings of Parliament or State Legislatures
No comments:
Post a Comment