PIL Filed in SC Challenging Union Cabinet's Ordinance to Protect Convicted MLAs and MPs

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