out an exceptional situation, warranting an order of stay on his award of conviction, though partially – Potential ramifications of declining to suspend such a conviction are multifaceted – It would deprive the appellant’s constituency of its legitimate representation in the Legislature; and the appellant would be disqualified from contesting elections for a period of ten years – Thus, the need to balance the interests of protecting the integrity of the electoral process on one hand, while also ensuring that constituents are not bereft of their right to be represented, merely consequent to a threshold opinion – Conviction awarded to the appellant suspended subject to the given conditions, clarifications and directions – Ghazipur parliamentary constituency not to be notified for bye-election, till the decision of the appellant’s appeal by the High Court – Appellant not entitled to participate in the proceedings of the house, would not have the right to cast his vote in the house or to draw any perks or monetary benefits. [Paras 13, 15, 17, 21, 23, 24] – Held: Per Dipankar Datta, J.(Dissenting) Allowing a convicted parliamentarian to attend parliamentary proceedings could not only be derogatory to the dignity of the Parliament but also derogatory to the good sense and wisdom of the people who elected such parliamentarian – While recognizing the importance of the electorate’s representation, it is necessary to maintain a balance between this right and the enforcement of legal accountability within the democratic framework – The fact that the court is approached by a parliamentarian/legislator, by itself, should not be viewed with such importance and indispensability – Thus, the judgment passed by the High Court does not call for interference – Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. [Paras 52, 80, 48] Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389(1) – Suspension of conviction – Essential parameters:
Held: It is evident from the plain language of s. 389(1) that the appellate court is unambiguously vested with the power to issue an order for the suspension of a sentence or an order of conviction during the pendency of an appeal and grant bail to the incarcerated convict, for which it is imperative to assign the reasons in writing – The very notion of irreversible consequences is centered on factors, including the individual’s criminal antecedents, the gravity of the offence, and its wider social impact, while simultaneously considering the facts and circumstances of the case – s. 389(1) should not be interpreted in a narrow manner, in the context of a stay on an order of conviction, when there are irreversible consequences – An order granting a stay of conviction should not be the rule but an exception and should be resorted to in rare cases depending upon the facts of a case – However, where conviction, if allowed to operate would lead to irreparable damage and where the convict cannot be compensated in any monetary terms or otherwise, if he is acquitted later on, that by itself carves out an exceptional situation. [Paras 10, 11, 15]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 389 (1) – Suspension of conviction – Conviction of an offence involving ‘moral turpitude’, if a ground to deny suspension of conviction u/s. 389(1): Held: While invoking the concept of ‘moral turpitude’ as a decisive factor in granting or withholding the suspension of conviction for an individual, there is a resounding imperative to address the issue of depoliticising criminality – There has been increasing clamour to decriminalise polity and hold elected representatives accountable for their criminal antecedents - It is a hard truth that persons with a criminal background are potential threats to the very idea of democracy, since they often resort to criminal means to succeed in elections and other ventures – On facts, substantial doubt cast upon the appellant’s criminal antecedents along with the veracity and threat posed by these claims, in light of the many FIRs produced in the proceedings – Although ‘moral turpitude’ may carry relevance within the context of elected representatives, the courts are bound to construe the law in its extant state and confine their deliberations to those facets explicitly outlined, rather than delving into considerations pertaining to the moral rectitude or ethical character of actions – This is especially true when it is solely motivated by the convicted individual’s status as a political representative, with the aim of disqualification. [Paras 19, 20] Judicial Notice – Appellant seeking suspension of conviction u/s. 389(1) CrPC – Appellant not enumerate any material facts regarding irreversible consequences in his application filed before the High Court, seeking the suspension of conviction:
Held: This principle can be traced to the statutory provisions outlined in s. 8 of the Representation of the People Act – High Court or this Court however, while exercising their appellate jurisdictions, well empowered to take judicial notice of these consequences – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. [Para 18]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
In The Judgment of Surya Kant, J.
Naranbhai Khikhabhai Kachchadia v. State of Gujarat Crl. Appeal No. 418/2016; Lok Prahari through General Secretary v. Election Commission of India and others [2018] 12 SCR 169 : (2018) 18 SCC 114; Lily Thomas v. Union of India [2013] 10 SCR 1130 : (2013) 7 SCC 653; Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 5 SCC 787; Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 1156 : (2007) 1 SCC 673 – referred to.
In The Judgment of Dipankar Datta, J.
Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Ishwarbhai Modi & Anr. 2023 SCC OnLine SC 929 – distinguished.
Ravikant S. Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 1156: (2007) 1 SCC 673; Rama Narang v. Ramesh Narang & Ors. [1995] 1 SCR
456 : (1995) 2 SCC 513; Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab [2007] 1 SCR 1143 : (2007) 2 SCC 574; Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra (2009)
5 SCC 787; Lily Thomas v. Union of India [2013] 10 SCR 1130 : (2013) 7 SCC 653; Lok Prahari through General Secretary S.N. Shukla v. Election Commission of India & Ors. [2018] 12 SCR 169 : (2018) 18 SCC 114; Naranbhai Bhikhabhai Kachchadia v. State of Gujarat Criminal Appeal No. 418/2016; K.C. Sareen v. CBI (2001) 6 SCC 584; State of Maharashtra v. Balakrishna Dattatraya Kumbhar [2012] 9 SCR 601 : (2012) 12 SCC 384; Shyam Narain Pandey v. State of U.P [2014] 8 SCR 923 : (2014) 8 SCC 909; K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan [2005] 1 SCR 296 : (2005) 1 SCC 754; Lalsai Khunte v. Nirmal Sinha (2007) 9 SCC 330; K. Anandan Nambiar, In Re AIR 1952 Madras 117; Public Interest Foundation and others v. Union of India and Another (2019) 3 SCC 224; Jyoti Basu v. Debi Ghosal [1982]
3 SCR 318 : (1982) 1 SCC 691; Pradeep Kumar Sonthalia v. Dhiraj Prasad Sahu (2021) 6 SCC 523; Ashish Shelar v. Maharashtra Legislative Assembly (2022) 12 SCC 273 – referred to.
Constituent Assembly Debates, Volume 8 (19th May, 1949) – referred to.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.