Do you agree with the view that the convicted lawmakers should be automatically disqualified after conviction? Discuss while keeping Lily Thomas case in focus.|
Criminalization of the politics has been an issue plaguing the Indian political system. As per Association for Democratic reforms, current Parliament has highest number of politicians facing criminal charges like kidnapping, sexual assault etc.
The convicted law makers should be automatically disqualified as:
a)Protection to convicted lawmakers was provided under Section 8(4) of Representation of People’s Act 1951, which provided that those who convicted with imprisonment shall not be immediately disqualified and allowed a three-month period for filing appeal to the higher court and to get a stay of the conviction and sentence.
b)Supreme court in Lily Thomas case struck down the Section 8(4) of RPA 1951 as unconstitutional.
c) Court found that it unconstitutional that convicted persons could be disqualified from contesting elections but could continue to be Members of Parliament and State Legislatures once elected under Section 8(4)
d)Parliament under under Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution cannot make different laws a person disqualified to fight election and for a convicted member to continue as MP/MLA.
e)Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution allow parliament to make laws for disqualification and not protection and preservation of membership of the house.
f)Judicial delay would lead to members completing his term thus defeating the purpose of any such law.
g)Retaining convicted members would erode sanctity that is attached with law making.
h)Allowing convicted members in Parliament/Legislative Assembly will not be a good example for upcoming young leaders.
Do you agree with the view that the convicted lawmakers should be automatically disqualified after conviction? Discuss while keeping Lily Thomas case in focus. GKToday | FE | ET
Published: September 26, 2017 | Modified:June 27, 2019