Q. Consider the following statements:
- Section 8 of the RP Act, 1951 deals with disqualification of a lawmaker for conviction in certain offences.
- In Lily Thomas v Union of India, 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RPA as unconstitutional.
- Section 8(4)of the RPA, 1951 states the person shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of 6 years since his release.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Answer:
Only 1 & 2
Notes:
- Article 102deals with the disqualification of MPs from either house of the Parliament.
- The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides for the conduct of election of the Houses of Parliament, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those Houses. Section 8 of the RP Act, 1951 deals with disqualification of a lawmaker for conviction in certain offences.
- Section 8(1) - specific offences.
- Section 8(2) - offences that deal with hoarding or profiteering, adulteration of food or drugs and for conviction and sentence (at least 6 months) under the Dowry Prohibition Act.
- Section 8(3)of the RPA, 1951 states that a person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than 2 years shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction. Further the person shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of 6 years since his release.
- The disqualification can be reversed if a higher court grants a stay on the conviction or decides the appeal in favour of the convicted lawmaker.
- In Lily Thomas v Union of India, 2013, the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RPA as unconstitutional.
- Section 8(4)of the RPA stated that the disqualification takes effect only after 3 months have elapsed from the date of conviction, within which lawmakers could file an appeal in the High Court.