Supreme Court Declares Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 Ultra Vires the Constitution. The provision allowing sitting members to defer disqualification upon conviction violates Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution mandating uniform disqualifications.

  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The Supreme Court addressed two writ petitions filed as Public Interest Litigations challenging the constitutionality of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioners contended that this provision, which allows sitting members of Parliament or State Legislatures to defer disqualification upon conviction for a period of three months, is ultra vires the Constitution. They argued that Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution provide the same disqualifications for being elected and for continuing as a member, and thus, the law cannot differentiate between the two. The respondents defended the provision, asserting that it serves to protect the functioning of the legislature and allows for the possibility of appeal against convictions. The court analyzed the legislative powers conferred by the Constitution and concluded that Parliament does not have the authority to create a distinction in disqualifications for elected members versus those seeking election. The court emphasized that disqualifications must be uniform and that the provision in question was arbitrary and discriminatory, violating the principle of equality under Article 14. Ultimately, the court declared sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act as unconstitutional, reinforcing the need for consistent application of disqualifications for all members of the legislature.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Disqualification for Membership - Legislative Power - Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 - The court held that Parliament lacks the legislative power to enact a provision that allows sitting members to defer disqualification upon conviction, as it contravenes Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution which mandate uniform disqualifications for election and membership. The provision was deemed arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution (Paras 14-19).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is ultra vires the Constitution.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court declared sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 as ultra vires the Constitution, holding that it violates the uniformity of disqualifications mandated by Articles 102 and 191.

Law Points

  • disqualification for membership
  • legislative power
  • public interest litigation
  • constitutional validity
  • interpretation of statutes
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (SC) (07) 70

Writ Petition (Civil) No. 490 of 2005 and No. 231 of 2005

2013-07-10

A. K. Patnaik

Fali S. Nariman, S.N. Shukla, Siddharth Luthra, Paras Kuhad

Lily Thomas, Lok Prahari

Union of India & Ors.

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Public Interest Litigation challenging the constitutionality of a legislative provision.

Remedy Sought

Petitioners sought a declaration that sub-section (4) of Section 8 is ultra vires the Constitution.

Filing Reason

The provision allows sitting members to defer disqualification upon conviction.

Previous Decisions

The validity of sub-section (4) was previously upheld in K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan.

Issues

Whether sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is ultra vires the Constitution. Whether Parliament has the legislative power to enact a provision that allows sitting members to defer disqualification upon conviction.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the provision violates Articles 102 and 191 by creating a distinction between elected members and those seeking election. Respondents contended that the provision protects the functioning of the legislature and allows for appeals against convictions.

Ratio Decidendi

Parliament lacks the legislative power to create a distinction in disqualifications for elected members versus those seeking election, as mandated by Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution.

Judgment Excerpts

The court held that Parliament lacks the legislative power to enact a provision that allows sitting members to defer disqualification upon conviction. The provision was deemed arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Article 14 of the Constitution.

Procedural History

The writ petitions were filed challenging the constitutionality of sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, leading to the Supreme Court's examination of legislative powers and constitutional provisions.

Acts & Sections

  • Representation of the People Act, 1951: Section 8
  • Constitution of India: Articles 102, 191, 101, 190, 246, 248
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Notice of Motion Seeking Recall of Orders Dismissing Caveats in Testamentary Proceeding; Finds Prior Order Granting Letters of Administration to Daughter as Sole Heir Without Probate Was Without Jurisdiction. Court Holds T...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Application to Reject Caveat in Probate Petition for Lack of Caveatable Interest. Brother of Deceased Cannot Oppose Grant of Probate Based on Adverse Title Claim to Subject Property.