Petition filed against SC verdict on convicted MPs, MLAs

New Delhi: Petitions seeking review of two landmark judgements of Supreme Court, disqualification of MPs and MLAs on being convicted and debarring arrested persons from contesting polls, have been filed in the apex court. The petition has been filed by the President of Haryana Swatantra Party Ramesh Dayal. Dayal has urged the Supreme Court to review its two verdicts delivered on July 10.

The apex court had held that a person, who is in jail or in police custody, cannot contest election to legislative bodies bringing to an end an era of undertrial politicians fighting polls from behind bars. This excludes in preventive detention. In another path breaking verdict, the apex court had also struck down a provision in the Representation of Peoples Act(RPA) that protects a convicted lawmaker from disqualification on the ground of pendency of appeal in higher courts.

The verdicts have been widely opposed by politicians cutting across party lines and the Centre has also indicated that it may also approach the apex court for a review and also go for a "legislative remedy" by amending the current laws. "The impugned judgement, suffers from errors, which are apparent on the face of the record. Section 8(4) of RPA has been declared unconstitutional by this Court without tracing its history and object sought to be achieved in terms of the rationale behind it," the petition said.

"This Court passed erroneous judgement which shall have serious repercussion and consequences over the functioning of the Parliament, State Legislature and democracy in the country as a whole. "There is no doubt that preventing of criminalization of politics is a basic feature of the Constitution but it cannot be extended to the level when democratically constituted Parliament may be weakened even to face its very existence and continuity. With this reason, this matter deserves to be referred to the Constitution Bench/ Larger Bench for proper consideration," the petition said.

CNN-IBN had earlier learnt that the government's lawyer, the Attorney General, had asked the government to challenge the verdict. The AG had said that since the matter relates to how the constitution is interpreted, it should be decided by a bench of 5 judges.

(With additional inputs from PTI)