Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

MOOTPROBLEMGroup2

1. MsArunaTyagiistheChiefMinisterofthestateofUnitedProvinceandaMemberof
theRajyaSabhaofIndia.Shewasaccusedofmisappropriationoffundsduringher
tenure. TheChiefMinister has been accused of corruptioncharges and amassing
wealthdisproportionatetothedeclaredsourcesofincomeamountingto66crores.After
theinvestigation,theinvestigatingagencyhadchargesheetedMs.ArunaTyagi.
2. After 12 years of inordinate delay, the Special Court pronounced the decision and
convicted Ms. Aruna Tayagi with 5 years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of 25
Lakhs.OthercoaccusedinthecasewerealsoconvictedandpunishedbytheSpecial
Court. This caused immediate disqualification of Ms. Aruna Tyagi to continue as a
MemberofParliamentbyvirtueoflatestJudgmentgivenbytheHonbleSupremeCourt
ofIndiadeliveredinLilyThomascase, WRITPETITION(CIVIL)NO.490OF2005
(hereinafterlatestJudgment)pronouncedon10thJuly2013.
3. Ms.ArunaTyagifiledtheSpecialLeavePetition(hereinafterSLP)intheSupremeCourt
ofIndiatochallengethelatest Judgment.InthelatestjudgmenttheHonbleSupreme
CourthadheldthattheMembersofParliament(MPs),MembersofStateLegislative
Assembly(MLAs)andMemberofStateLegislativeCouncil(MLCs)willbedisqualified
ontheirbeingconvicted,withimmediateeffectandprotectionprovidedbySection8sub
section(4)ofTheRepresentationofthePeoplesAct,1951(hereinaftertheAct,1951)
willnotbeavailableasthisprovisionoftheAct,1951isultravirestotheConstitutionof
India. The Court further held that, the person who is not eligible for contesting an
electionforperiodof6yearsifheisconvictedwithimprisonmentofnotlessthan2years
foranyoftheoffencesmentionedinsubsections(1),(2)and(3)ofSection8oftheAct,
1951,theninthesamesituationhecannotholdtheofficeasMemberofParliamentor
MemberofLegislativeAssembliesofState.
TheSupremeCourtfurtherheldthattheParliamentofIndiadoesnothavethepowerto
enactSubsection(4)ofSection8oftheAct,1951whichprovidesthatnotwithstanding
anythingprovidedinsubsection(1),subsection(2)orsubsection(3)inSection8ofthe
Act,1951adisqualificationundereithersubsectionshallnot,inthecaseofaperson
whoonthedateoftheconvictionisaMemberofParliamentortheLegislatureofa

State,takeeffectuntilthreemonthshaveelapsedfromthatdateor,ifwithinthatperiod
anappealorapplicationforrevisionfiledisbroughtinrespectoftheconvictionorthe
sentence,untilthatappealorapplicationisdisposedofbythecourt.TheCourtmadeit
clearthatitwaslongbackthesameCourthasheldthatgroundsprovidedunderArticle
102(1)and191(1)oftheConstitutionprovidessamesetofdisqualificationsforelection
aswellasforcontinuingasamember.
4. AggrievedbythislatestjudgmentMs.ArunaTyagipleadedbeforetheSupremeCourtof
IndiathroughtheSLPthatourCriminalJusticeSystemisbasedonfundamentalprinciple
ofpresumptionofinnocenceinfavourofaccused. Ifaccusedisconvictedbyalower
court then he can always approach the higher court to seek justice. Appeal being
continuationoforiginalproceeding, thejudgementbecomesfinalonlyondisposalof
appealbytheappellatecourt.
5. Howeverincaseof Ms.ArunaTyagi,the decisiongivenbytheSpecialCourtcaused
immediate effect to Ms. Aruna Tyagi by virtue of her disqualification from being a
MemberofParliamentwithoutbeingprovidedwiththebenefitsofrighttoappeal.
6. ShefurtherpleadedthatlatestjudgmentoftheSupremeCourtdefeatstheobjectofRight
toAppeal.Thepetitionerhasgivenfollowingreasonstoshowthathowthisjudgmentis
taintedwithseriouslegalinfirmitiesandneedstobereviewedbythehighestcourtofthe
country.
7. The petitioner pleaded that Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in APPEAL
(CIVIL)NO.8213OF2001 hadexpresslyacceptedthevalidityofsubsection(4)of
Section 8 of the Act, 1951.The petitioner pleaded that if the convicted Member is
disqualifiedwithimmediateeffect,tofillthevacancyElectionCommissionwillhaveto
conductanElectionagain.Itwillincreasethefinancialburdenonpublicexchequer.In
case the Court of Appeal acquits the convicted Member, then it will create more
problemsandcomplicationswithoutprovidinganyschemeofcompensation.
8. ThereisalwayspossibilitythatthecourtofAppealwilltakedifferentviewthancourtof
firstinstanceconsideringthejudicialtrendsinIndia. Itwillcausegreathardshipand
grossinjusticetotheconvictedmemberwhowasdisqualifiedfromthemembershipof
the house. The petitioner further submitted that the source of legislative power for
enactingsubsection(4)ofSection8oftheAct,1951isverymuchthereinArticles

102(1)(e)and191(1)(e) oftheConstitutionofIndiaandifnotinthesearticlesofthe
Constitution,theninArticle246(1)readwithEntry97ofListIoftheSeventhSchedule
oftheConstitutionandArticle248oftheConstitution.
Arguefrombothsides.