Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court considered an appeal under Section 116A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 against a High Court order declaring the appellant's election void. The appellant had been elected to the Punjab Vidhan Sabha from the Giddarbha Assembly Constituency in an election held on 19.2.1992. The respondent, a voter from that constituency, filed an election petition alleging that the appellant was disqualified to be a candidate at the time of election. The admitted facts were that the appellant was convicted by the trial court on 15.11.1984 for an offence punishable under Section 326 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100, along with convictions under other sections of the Indian Penal Code. His appeal was dismissed by the High Court on 10.4.1987 and the special leave petition was rejected by the Supreme Court on 30.11.1987. He served jail sentences from 8.9.1987 to 21.10.89 and again from 8.2.1988 to 14.11.1989. Under the plain language of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the appellant was disqualified because he was convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years, and the election was held within six years from his release. The High Court upheld the election petition and declared the election void. The appellant filed the present appeal and also a writ petition challenging the constitutional validity of sub-section (3) of Section 8. The only question considered by the Supreme Court was the constitutional validity of sub-section (3). The appellant argued that sub-section (1) provides disqualification for six years from the date of conviction, while sub-section (3) provides disqualification for six years from the date of release, and this longer period was discriminatory. The Court rejected this argument. It analysed the scheme of Section 8: sub-section (1) prescribes disqualification for six years from conviction for specified offences irrespective of sentence; sub-section (2) applies to other specified offences where the sentence is imprisonment for not less than six months, disqualifying from date of conviction and continuing for six years from release; sub-section (3) is a residuary provision applying to persons convicted of any other offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years, similarly disqualifying from date of conviction and continuing for six years from release. The Court held that the classification was clear and based on the nature of the offences and the sentences awarded. The categories in the three sub-sections were distinct and could not be compared inter se. The legislature had wide discretion in classification, and there was no arbitrariness. It also noted that classification of offences based on the period of sentence is a well recognised method, as seen in the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition and the civil appeal, upholding the constitutional validity of sub-section (3) of Section 8. The appellant/petitioner was directed to pay costs of Rs. 10,000 to the respondents.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Legislative Classification - Article 14 - Representation of the People Act, 1951, Sections 8(1), 8(2), 8(3) - The challenge to Section 8(3) on the ground of discrimination was rejected on the basis that sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) cover distinct and different classes of persons convicted of different offences and sentenced differently. The court held that the category of persons covered by each sub-section being different, no comparison inter se between any two of these three distinct classes arose, and the prescription of different periods of disqualification was within legislative discretion and wisdom. Held that the classification was valid and not open to judicial scrutiny on the ground of arbitrariness. (Paras 1-3) B) Election Law - Disqualification on Conviction - Section 8(3) Representation of the People Act, 1951 - A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years, other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2), is disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. The court found no merit in the argument that this longer period should be read as six years from the date of conviction similar to sub-section (1), because the legislation has made a clear classification with reference to offences and sentences awarded on conviction. Held that Section 8(3) is constitutionally valid. (Paras 1-3) C) Election Law - Classification of Offences - First Schedule Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - The court observed that classification of offences for certain purposes on the basis of the period of sentence is a well known method of classification, as exemplified by the First Schedule to the Code of Criminal Procedure which classifies offences against laws other than the Indian Penal Code on the basis of sentence prescribed. The court applied this analogy to uphold the classification in Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Held that the mode of classification adopted in the different sub-sections of Section 8 is a well recognised mode of classification of offences, and the legislature has wide discretion in the matter of classification. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is constitutionally invalid on the ground of discrimination because it prescribes a longer period of disqualification extending to six years since release, unlike sub-section (1) which prescribes six years from the date of conviction.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition and consequently the civil appeal. The constitutional validity of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was upheld. The appellant/petitioner was directed to pay costs to the respondents, quantified at Rs. 10,000.
Law Points
- Prescription of period of disqualification for different classes of persons convicted of different offences is within legislative discretion
- classification of offences on basis of period of sentence is a well recognised mode of classification
- distinct classes under Section 8(1)
- 8(2)
- 8(3) cannot be compared inter se
- longer disqualification of six years from release for conviction with sentence of not less than two years is not discriminatory
