Fali Nariman has rightly noted that Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act is discriminatory as it creates two classes of convicts
MLAs and MPs seek to cushion themselves with privileges and perks that sometimes appear dubious and can conceivably be of little use to ordinary citizens who voted them in.
Sizeable concessions on telephone services and air and rail travel do not really pass muster but let that pass; however, the demand of MPs to be given cars with red beacons or be allowed to be escorted right up to the tarmac at an airport, do fall in this category. Matters are made worse when the law makes a distinction, willy-nilly, between the citizen and his representatives, as was sought to be pointed out by eminent jurist Fali Nariman while arguing a case in the Supreme Court last week.
Mr Nariman, who was not long ago a nominated member of the Rajya Sabha, has rightly noted that Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act is discriminatory as it creates two classes of convicts — one that may be from the category of ordinary citizens, and the other from among legislators. This section stipulates that a sitting MP or MLA will not be disqualified for three months if he is convicted, and if he files an appeal within this 90-day period then the disqualification will have to attend on the disposal of the case. Ordinary citizens have no such luck when they are convicted.
What a curious situation. An ordinary person stands automatically debarred from entering government service if convicted for a certain category of crime, but not so an MLA or MP who may be a minister at the time of conviction and yet be the head of a whole department of employees.
The sooner the apex court can rule to set aside the anomaly in law the better. Oddly enough, an additional solicitor-general, appearing for the government, countered Mr Nariman, saying that a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had held in 2005 that if MPs and MLAs were to be disqualified straightaway on conviction, then democratically elected governments could be in trouble as they tended to enjoy a wafer-thin majority these days. This is an argument of politics, and cannot be made the basis of a law which must be consistent with the idea of equality among citizens. To give a parallel argument, what would happen if a ruling party MLA or MP were to expire suddenly? Can a government which crucially depends on his vote be protected by having a convenient and self-serving law?
The Election Commission has repeatedly urged that the RPI be tightened so that criminals may not find a place in our legislatures. But our MPs and MLAs seem lukewarm to such ideas.
Post new comment