dna edit: Significant but lacks bite

By striking down a provision in the Representation of the People Act that allowed criminal elements to enter and continue in political office, the Supreme Court (SC) has rectified an unfair privilege Parliament showered on MPs and MLAs.

The now unconstitutional Section 8(4) of the RP Act had protected criminal lawmakers from immediate disqualification, despite conviction, if they filed an appeal within three months. But with the judgment having only prospective effect, very few convicted MPs and MLAs have to worry about disqualification in the short term. In this scenario, high courts (HC) must expedite these appeals to ensure that Wednesday’s judgment achieves its objective and quickly synchronises the past, present and future. Though the judgment makes no mention of expediting appeals, the SC has ample powers to issue appropriate directions to lower courts in this regard.

Unfortunately, the government has successfully argued before the SC for the rights of legislators “who suffer from frivolous conviction by the trial court”.

Despite striking down Section 8(4), the SC allowed convicted lawmakers relief from disqualification if a HC “stays” the trial court’s conviction order. So what happens to the constituency these disqualified legislators represent while the HC hears a stay appeal? In effect, Section 8(4) goes but convicted politicians can still hope for succour. This bias towards legislators, unavailable to ordinary citizens or bureaucrats, is simply untenable.

Every citizen, arguably, risks implication in false FIRs and chargesheets but it can also be argued that politicians are better equipped to seek recourse. When IAS officers get suspended as soon as FIRs are lodged against them, why spare politicians?

Like ordinary people, politicians must use courts for corrective action. Lower courts have come to the rescue of politicians framed by ruling parties as Aam Aadmi Party workers are experiencing now. The bogey — that lower courts can not be trusted — just does not hold water.

While the dictum “innocent until proven guilty” holds for everyone, those occupying public office must be held to a higher ethical standard. Nobody is indispensable in a multi-party democracy and electoral politics is not the sole platform for public service. This even begs the question why disqualification of lawmakers has to wait until conviction: why not when charges have been framed and the court has taken a prima facie view of the charges after hearing prosecution and defence arguments? Few prosecution witnesses can surmount the fear of a sitting legislator to depose freely.

Predictably, politicians have received the SC judgment cautiously. With 162 Lok Sabha members and 1,258 MLAs having criminal cases against them, political parties will now think twice before granting tickets to such elements, fearing disqualification. But to strike at the root of criminalisation of politics, the police and the judiciary must — first — fast-track the cases against these MPs and MLAs.