The numbers of MPs and MLAs in the country connected with serious crime is substantial, and this has alarmed observers. It is probably with this in view that a two-judge bench of the Supreme Court ruled last month that a legislator convicted in a criminal case for which the jail term is two years or more would lose membership of the House.
This ruling also took away the right of arrested persons to contest elections for legislatures. The court’s verdict sits very well with the public mood.
After consulting various political parties, the Union government filed a review petition on Monday, saying a two-judge bench cannot overrule a bench of five judges that had considered the same issue earlier. The government, representing the political system as a whole, appears to have technicality on its side. Nevertheless, a way should be found to ensure that we don’t have lawmakers who are criminals.
In 2005, a five-judge bench had allowed convicted legislators three months’ time to appeal against a sentence, and could stick around in legislatures until the appeal was disposed of. Given the glacial pace of the judiciary, in practice this meant hanging on till the end of their term. The logic was that governments might be rendered unstable if criminal MPs or MLAs were jailed rightaway, and that constituencies may go without representation if criminal MPs/MLAs were jailed. But the point is: how long can a democracy tolerate the burden of criminals making laws for its
citizens.