SC issues notice in PIL seeking to debar persons charged in serious offences from contesting polls

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission on a plea to debar persons against whom charges have been framed in serious offences from contesting elections.

A bench of justices K M Joseph and Hrishikesh Roy issued notices to the Ministry of Law and Justice, the Ministry of Home Affairs, and the poll panel.

The top court was hearing a plea filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay on the issue.

Besides debarring persons against whom charges have been framed in criminal cases, the plea has also sought a direction to the Centre and the Election Commission of India (ECI) to take steps to restrain such candidates who are put on trial for serious offences.

According to a report carried by Live Law, a five-judge bench comprising of justices Abdul Nazeer, B.R. Gavai, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian and B.V. Nagarathna noted that the present case is squarely covered by the judgment of the apex court in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State.

Though the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta agreed, he submitted that the said judgment was passed by a constitution bench, in a 3:2 split. He argued that revisiting the said judgment as was mentioned in the reference order might not be effective as the bench taking up the present case and the one that passed the judgment in the P.V. Narasimha case are of equal strength.

During the course of the brief hearing, Justice Nagarathna noted, "Question is, is it the act within the house or the entire scope of the act has to be considered, immunity is there for the entire act or not," reported Live Law.

Sita Soren, a member of the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha was accused of accepting a bribe for the purpose of voting in favour of a particular candidate in the 2012 Rajya Sabha Elections. Subsequently, a chargesheet was filed by the Central Bureau of Investigation.

Challenging the same, Soren filed a petition before the Jharkhand High Court on the ground that she enjoyed immunity under Article 194(2) of the Constitution, 1950, which contemplates, 'no member of the Legislature of a State shall be liable to any proceedings in any court in respect of anything said or any vote given by him in the Legislature'. The High Court dismissed the petition.

During the course of hearing, an appeal before the apex court relied on the judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State, which upheld the immunity enjoyed by the parliamentarians under Article 194(2) from prosecution for taking bribes in relation to parliamentary vote. The Supreme Court, then, thought it fit to refer the matter to a constitution bench that could reconsider its judgment in P.V. Narasimha Rao v. State.

The issue framed for reference was, "Whether Article 105/194 (2) of the Constitution of India confers any immunity on the Members of Parliament/Legislative Assembly from being prosecuted for an offence involving offer or acceptance of bribe to caste vote in a legislature?" reported Live Law.