Crookbond Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 FYI - SC is also considering a change in CBI's so called "autonomy".
adi B Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 nothing will happen rather get ready to face the wrath of the govn
Clarke Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 they has done something in Parliament - its that very section that the SC has struck down. The SC is getting very active on such issues lately. Which is why I fear the govt's plans to limit its autonomy.
coffee_rules Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 They will use it on Modi when he gets elected.
FischerTal Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 They will use it on Modi when he gets elected. you need to convict first :giggle:
superstar Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 http://www.indianexpress.com/news/p-sathasivam-to-be-new-chief-justice-of-india/1135567/ Madras mama :isalute:
Sachin=GOD Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 Which is why I fear the govt's plans to limit its autonomy. yeah, they're changing the system of Judges' appointment.
Raghav_12 Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 I know that these comments would not endear me to many people on this forum. But still would like to know how this ruling sits with the democratic values of the country. Doesn't this ruling takes away ultimate power from the hands on people to put in hands of system? Now if somebody wants to raise voice against system, system may found that person guilty and that person can't seek mandate from population of the country. Can that much power be given to a system in a democracy? There have been cases in past where people were charged (criminally) for unjustified reasons. During emergency many were charged and put in jails. Another good example is L K Advani's hawala case where CBI had filed case against him because all they found was diary which mentioned acronym of LKA and a sum of few lakhs of rupees. Court had quashed that case in single hearing. But I believe Advani suffered a lot politically because of that one frivolous case, probably it cost him prime-ministership as well. I know conviction is different from charging somebody and in examples I have taken here are of the people who were charged only. However, when our CJI himself admitted that there is some corruption in judiciary as well, how difficult it would be to get somebody convicted in some lower court on some frivolous charges. That person may subsequently be cleared by appellate courts but damage would be done. If I had to make such ruling, i would have taken at least two more parameters rather than just conviction of any kind. a) what are the charges person being convicted for b) at what level of courts that person is being convicted. Person should be allowed until appeal has been dismissed at least by high court.
superstar Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 In some places in UP/Bihair convicts threaten people. They have no power. In some places people are bribed. Judiciary just filling this void. Political parties already up in arms.
Sachin=GOD Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 I know that these comments would not endear me to many people on this forum. But still would like to know how this ruling sits with the democratic values of the country. Doesn't this ruling takes away ultimate power from the hands on people to put in hands of system? Now if somebody wants to raise voice against system, system may found that person guilty and that person can't seek mandate from population of the country. Can that much power be given to a system in a democracy? There have been cases in past where people were charged (criminally) for unjustified reasons. During emergency many were charged and put in jails. Another good example is L K Advani's hawala case where CBI had filed case against him because all they found was diary which mentioned acronym of LKA and a sum of few lakhs of rupees. Court had quashed that case in single hearing. But I believe Advani suffered a lot politically because of that one frivolous case, probably it cost him prime-ministership as well. I know conviction is different from charging somebody and in examples I have taken here are of the people who were charged only. However, when our CJI himself admitted that there is some corruption in judiciary as well, how difficult it would be to get somebody convicted in some lower court on some frivolous charges. That person may subsequently be cleared by appellate courts but damage would be done. If I had to make such ruling, i would have taken at least two more parameters rather than just conviction of any kind. a) what are the charges person being convicted for b) at what level of courts that person is being convicted. Person should be allowed until appeal has been dismissed at least by high court. cases of people being targeted and the case reaching a point where the person is convicted are not many. But cases of real criminals like Raja Bhaiya being MLA (and Minister as well) are much more frequent and there was an urgent need to control them. However, I do agree with in essence with the last paragraph that the SC should have had some parameters.
Crookbond Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 From what I understand, disqualification for elections can happen under two circumstances 1. Convicted by a court of law 2. Should be sentenced to prison for not less than 2 years In addition, the disqualification would continue till 6 years after the MP/MLA leaves prison. Also, MPs/MLA's can not continue their position IF your appeal is not accepted. Earlier, I think they could continue for a period of 3 months after conviction and an appeal was filed in a higher court viz. they could continue even if a lower court convicted them. I think currently - they can't. Once again - media reports are very complex for a non legal person to even make sense of this verdict. :wall:
Crookbond Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 In addition, let me add that this judgment by the SC does not stop here. The political class is visibly unhappy with this verdict and if I'm not wrong the parliament MAY introduce an ordinance to work around this judgment. Legal experts please comment!
Raghav_12 Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 From what I understand, disqualification for elections can happen under two circumstances 1. Convicted by a court of law 2. Should be sentenced to prison for not less than 2 years In addition, the disqualification would continue till 6 years after the MP/MLA leaves prison. Also, MPs/MLA's can not continue their position IF your appeal is not accepted. Earlier, I think they could continue for a period of 3 months after conviction and an appeal was filed in a higher court viz. they could continue even if a lower court convicted them. I think currently - they can't. Once again - media reports are very complex for a non legal person to even make sense of this verdict. :wall: I could not clearly understand that paragraph. Position until now was if a person is convicted by a court at some level but if that person files an appeal in higher court against that conviction within 3 months then that person can continue to be MP/MLA until his/her appeal has been disposed off. In new ruling MP/MLA will have to resign immediately in case of them getting convicted irrespective of the fact if they have filed appeal against that or not. I agree with first part and I had missed that part which says minimum imprisonment of 2 years is required for this ruling to come in effect. Key question here is that can SC alter a law which has been passed by parliament? As per our constitution judiciary's role is limited to the implementation of law formed by parliament. Can courts amend those laws?
Raghav_12 Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 In addition, let me add that this judgment by the SC does not stop here. The political class is visibly unhappy with this verdict and if I'm not wrong the parliament MAY introduce an ordinance to work around this judgment. Legal experts please comment! Not a legal expert but yet can comment of this. It's true that in our system Judiciary's role is protector of rules designed by Parliament. Parliament is paramount. However, in landmark judgement of 1973 ( Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala) Supreme Court ruled that even Parliament can't interfere with the basic structure of constitution. There can not be any bill or amendment which changes the basic structure of constitution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kesavananda_Bharati_vs._The_State_of_Kerala This was the case which had achieved immense fame for Nani Palkhiwala and had firmly established him as the top lawyer of the country. So Parliament may force supreme court of change the ruling but only to the extent it doesn't go against fundamentals of constitution.
maniac Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 So Till now Police could get money out middle class who out of fear of having a record against their name would pay up....Now everyone wil care :yay: Great Time to be a S.I or Constable :yay:
Crookbond Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 I could not clearly understand that paragraph. Position until now was if a person is convicted by a court at some level but if that person files an appeal in higher court against that conviction within 3 months then that person can continue to be MP/MLA until his/her appeal has been disposed off. In new ruling MP/MLA will have to resign immediately in case of them getting convicted irrespective of the fact if they have filed appeal against that or not. I agree with first part and I had missed that part which says minimum imprisonment of 2 years is required for this ruling to come in effect. That is my understanding of the current judgment after consultation with people who are studying law. Key question here is that can SC alter a law which has been passed by parliament? As per our constitution judiciary's role is limited to the implementation of law formed by parliament. Can courts amend those laws? This is a little bit tricky but from what little I know the SC can not make "new laws" (by itself) but it can alter them or demand for the creation of a new law. In any case, I think that the political class may bring an ordinance to work around this. I think the more pertinent question (considering democratic principles) we need to ask is that - after serving of time according to the judicial process why should a person not be allowed to contest elections. However, since the judicial process is not exactly six sigma such questions could also be construed as a red herring of sorts.
Crookbond Posted July 10, 2013 Posted July 10, 2013 The full text of the SC order on the RPA can be read here http://www.scribd.com/doc/152888642/SC-order-on-Representation-of-Peoples-Act
Sachin=GOD Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 Kartikeya Sharma @kartikeya_1975 Government likely to move review petition against SC's judgement on MPs. Matter will be moved to a larger bench
Sachin=GOD Posted July 11, 2013 Posted July 11, 2013 Our MLAs facing criminal cases: Zero from Manipur, 189 from Uttar Pradesh After the Supreme Court struck down a provision in the Representation of the People Act that protected convicted lawmakers against disqualification on Wednesday, we looked for the number of MLAs in each state facing criminal cases to know how many faced ouster in case they were declared guilty. Jharkhand, whose residents has just gotten rid of a long president's rule with the JMM-Congress staking claim to form the new government on Wednesday, has the highest percentage of MLAs with criminal cases - 72 per cent! The tainted lawmakers number 55. Bihar comes second on the list with 58 per cent of the assembly occupied by lawmakers with alleged criminal background (140). The JD-U may have ended its alliance with the BJP over "secularism", but to take action against criminalisation will be a tougher task. Next on the shameful list is Maharashtra at 51 per cent. The Congress and NCP-ruled state has 146 legislators accused of different crime. Then Uttar Pradesh, at 47 per cent. But the country's largest state (population-wise) ruled by the Samajwadi Party is first in another count - in the number of MLAs with criminal cases - at a whopping 189. The states in 30-35 per cent list are West Bengal, Karnataka, Gujarat, Odisha, Tamil Nadu, Goa and one surprise - the tiny Puducherry! The poster boy in this list of 'criminal-run' states is Manipur. No MLA has been booked for any crime and another surprise - the north-eastern state is being run by the Congress. Number of MLAs with criminal cases and their percentage in the state assemblies: Andhra Pradesh: 75 (26 per cent), Arunachal Pradesh: 2 (3 per cent), Assam: 13 (10 per cent), Bihar: 140 (58 per cent), Chhattisgarh: 9 (10 per cent), Delhi: 8 (11 per cent), Goa: 12 (30 per cent), Gujarat: 57 (31 per cent), Haryana: 15 (17 per cent), Himachal Pradesh: 14 (21 per cent), Jammu and Kashmir: 7 (8 per cent), Jharkhand: 55 (72 per cent), Karnataka: 74 (34 per cent), Madhya Pradesh: 57 (26 per cent), Maharashtra: 146 (51 per cent), Manipur: 0 (0 per cent), Meghalaya: 1 (2 per cent), Mizoram: 4 (10 per cent), Nagaland: 1 (2 per cent), Odisha: 48 (33 per cent), Puducherry: 10 (33 per cent), Punjab: 22 (19 per cent), Rajasthan: 30 (15 per cent), Sikkim: 1 (3 per cent), Tamil Nadu: 70 (30 per cent), Tripura: 6 (10 per cent), Uttarakhand: 20 (29 per cent), UP: 189 (47 per cent) and West Bengal: 102 (35 per cent). The data is drawn from affidavits the MLAs filed at the Election Commission at the time of the last polls. The list does not count MLAs booked for a crime after the polls. Compiled from myneta.info. http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/our-mlas-facing-criminal-cases-zero-from-manipur-189-from-uttar-pradesh/1/290648.html
Recommended Posts