A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, also comprising Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, had reserved its verdict on August 28.
The Supreme Court is likely to pronounce its verdict on Tuesday on a batch of pleas raising a question whether lawmakers facing criminal trial can be disqualified from contesting elections at the stage of framing of charges against them. Presently, lawmakers are barred under the Representation of Peoples (RP) Act from contesting elections only after their conviction in a criminal case.
A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice Dipak Misra, also comprising Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, had reserved its verdict on August 28 and is slated to pronounce the verdict today.
CJI Misra is expected to deliver nine path-breaking decisions before October 1, his last working day in office. These include Aadhaar, Ayodhya title dispute case, SC/ST quota in promotions, making adultery gender-neutral, allowing all women to access Kerala's Sabarimala shrine, disqualification of legislators facing heinous charges, and live-streaming Supreme Court proceedings.
PIL
The bench was hearing the PILs filed by NGO 'Public Interest Foundation' and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.
Senior advocate Krishnan Venugopal, appearing for Upadhyay, said the court may ask the poll panel to ask political parties not to allow tainted candidates to contest on their tickets and symbols.
"Can the court allow a person, against whom charges have been framed, to become a judge. The answer is 'no'".
The principle that "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" should be made applicable in case of politicians also, he said.
1,765 members of Parliament and the assemblies have criminal cases against them, the Centre had told the top court in a separate matter. Of a total 3,816 cases against them, 3,045 are still pending.
While Uttar Pradesh tops the list with 248 legislators, Tamil Nadu and Bihar are placed second and third with 178 and 144 cases respectively.
What Supreme Court said
On August 28, Supreme Court said that the voters have a right to know the antecedents of candidates and the Election Commission could be asked to direct political parties to ensure that persons, facing criminal charges, do not contest on their tickets using their poll symbols.
"The voters have the right to know the candidates. Actually, a party can allow a person to contest on its ticket. But a person cannot contest on its ticket if he discloses the criminal antecedent," the bench said, adding that this direction may be given by the Election Commission to the political parties.
"They (people facing criminal charges) can contest elections, but they will not contest on the party ticket because he has this kind of stigma," the bench said.
The apex court had observed earlier that persons facing criminal charges would be free to contest, but they cannot do so on a party ticket under its election symbol.
Centre's submission
The Centre had contended that the judiciary should not venture into the legislative arena by creating a pre-condition which would adversely affect the right of the candidates to participate in polls as there was already the RP Act which deals with the issue of disqualification.
Referring to the concept of presumption of innocence until a person is proven guilty, the Centre had argued that depriving a person from contesting elections on a party ticket would amount to denial of the right to vote, which also included the right to contest.
It had said that the courts will have to presume innocence in view of the fact that in 70 per cent cases, accused are being acquitted.
Attorney General K K Venugopal, appearing for Centre had said that Parliament has made a distinction between an accused and a convict and there has been a provision for disqualification in the Representation of Peoples Act upon conviction of a lawmaker.
He referred to various judgements and said the expression of criminal antecedent was "extremely vague".
Moreover, "presumption of innocence is central to our criminal jurisprudence. A person is innocent until proven guilty."
The courts will have to presume innocence in view of the fact that in 70 per cent cases, accused are being acquitted, he said, adding that the high rate of acquittals could be due to deficiencies in the judicial system.
Parliament has made a distinction between an accused and a convict and there has been a provision for disqualification in the Representation of Peoples Act upon conviction of a lawmaker, he said.
Election Commission's views
The Election Commission of India had taken a view which was apparently opposite to the Centre and said the recommendations for decriminalising politics were made by the poll panel and the Law Commission way back in 1997 and 1998, but no action was taken on them.
Senior advocate Meenakshi Arora, appearing for the poll panel, exhorted the court to issue the direction in the matter besides asking Parliament to make the suitable law.
"We cannot comment on Parliament," the bench said, while reserving the order.
(With PTI inputs)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
 "File photo of Supreme Court, PTI")
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
)
)
)
)
)
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}
){kind=small}