The Supreme Court said that while granting the stay, the rationale that any conviction would cause a fresh election to be conducted for Lakshadweep, which would result in enormous expenses, was not the only thing which should have been taken into consideration.
—
ON Tuesday, the Supreme Court set aside the Kerala High Court’s Order granting a stay of conviction of member of Parliament (MP) from Lakshadweep, Mohammed Faizal.
A Bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan passed the Order to this effect while remanding the matter back to the high court to decide it afresh in the “proper perspective”.
The Bench also directed the high court to decide the matter within six weeks. Till then Faizal would continue to remain MP, the court clarified.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj opposed the continuation of Faizal as an MP.
On January 11, Faizal was convicted with three others by a sessions court in an attempted murder case and was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment.
On January 13 this year, the Lok Sabha secretariat issued a notification disqualifying Faizal from membership of the House.
The Election Commission of India also issued a press note on January 18 with regard to the by-election to be conducted on his seat.
However, on January 25, the Kerala High Court granted a stay of conviction of Faizal. It observed that the consequence of not suspending the conviction was drastic not only for Faizal but even for the nation.
“With the fear of repetition it is observed that the cumbersome process of elections will have to be started, and the exorbitant cost of a parliamentary election will have to be borne by the nation and indirectly by the people of this country.
“The enormity of administrative exercises required for the conduct of an election will inevitably lead to various developmental activities in the Union territory of Lakshadweep coming to a halt for a few weeks at least. Despite all these exercises and financial burdens, the maximum period for which the elected candidate can function will be only a period less than fifteen months,” a single judge of the Kerala High Court had noted.
Aggrieved by the decision of the Kerala High Court, the Union territory of Lakshadweep approached the Supreme Court, which on February 20 issued notice to Faizal but refused to stay the high court Order.
Today, commenting on the high court Order, the Supreme Court observed that the high court had considered only one aspect of the matter, that is, that Faizal was a member of Parliament, and any conviction would cause a fresh election to be conducted for Lakshadweep, which would result in enormous expenses.
This rationale, the Bench noted, could not have been the only reason to stay the conviction.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for Faizal and senior advocate Maneka Guruswamy appeared for the original complainant.
