Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Suspending Conviction Of Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal; Asks Kerala HC To Decide Afresh

This verdict was delivered by the bench after hearing the pleas by the administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep and the complainant who accused the parliamentarian of attempting to murder him. Both the UT administration and the private complainant approached the Supreme Court challenging the January 25 order of a single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court suspending Faizal’s conviction and sentence.

Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi represented Faizal. The complainant was represented by Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy. Additional Solicitor General for India KM Nataraj appeared for the UT administration.

Courtroom exchange

During the hearing today, Singhvi initially objected to the idea of remitting Faizal's application to the Kerala High Court to be considered afresh, saying that such an order would have 'severe consequences' for the parliamentarian. However, after noting the bench's inclination to give effect to what it had earlier proposed, the senior counsel requested the benefit of the high court's order to be extended till the disposal of the application for a stay on conviction - 

"In the unlikely event that this court does not agree with me, Your Lordships should direct a time-bound remand while allowing him to continue in Parliament. The consequence, otherwise, would be his disqualification from the Parliament. Now the elections are coming. He will be out permanently. It should be kept in mind that he is an elective representative of the people who has succeeded in securing an order in his favour that stayed his conviction. He is also not the petitioner in this case, but the respondent. There is equity on our side. If he is allowed to continue as an MP, how will that harm anybody?"

The Parliament is not currently in session and will not be till November, Justice Nagarathna pointed out, as she suggested requesting the high court to decide the application before November.

"Let him continue as a Member of Parliament till November then," Singhvi urged, before adding that Faizal was a member of a number of parliamentary committees and discharges many duties as a representative of his constituency even during the interregnum between two parliamentary sessions. The senior counsel drew support from the Supreme Court recently deciding to issue a stay on the conviction of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi in a criminal defamation case over his 'Modi surname' remark. In this case, a three-judge bench headed by Justice BR Gavai had granted the then-disqualified MP relief after acknowledging, among other things, the effect on not just Gandhi's right to continue in public life, but also the right of the electorate who voted him into power to serve as their representative. 

Both the additional solicitor-general and Guruswamy protested against the suggestion of extending the protective cover of the high court's order till Faizal's application is reconsidered. Guruswamy argued that the legislator had unduly benefited from an 'erroneous' order of the high court, saying, "The trial judge records collusion with the police. This is a very serious offence. He has greatly benefited from the high court's order."

Justice Nagarathna interjected. "You cannot say that just because the high court is erroneous, therefore, this man should be penalised. After considering the case in its proper perspective, the high court may have arrived, on merits, at an order in his favour. Only the approach is wrong."

"Therefore, the benefit of that wrong order should not be allowed to continue," ASG Nataraj exclaimed.

"We will have to balance the interest of all parties", Justice Nagarathna firmly said, "This is only an application for a stay on his conviction, and not a final hearing of an appeal against the conviction itself. We are sending the matter back. Within six weeks, they will decide the application. We are not saying preferably six weeks. We are saying six weeks. During this time, this order will continue."

Background

The Member of Parliament and NCP party whip was convicted along with three others, for attempting to murder Mohammed Salih, son-in-law of an Indian National Congress leader and former union minister under the United Progressive Alliance government, during the 2009 Lok Sabha polls. A sessions court in Kavaratti had sentenced the four accused to 10 years in jail. Subsequently, on the strength of the conviction, Faizal was also disqualified from the Lok Sabha by its secretariat. However, in January, a single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court suspended Faizal's conviction. In the backdrop of the election commission organising a bye-poll to fill the vacancy, Justice Bechu Kurian Thomas expressed concerns about the associated expenditures and observed that the newly elected candidate would be able to function only for a period less than fifteen months. Noting that no dangerous weapons were found to have been used by Faizal and that the wound certificates did not indicate any serious injuries, Justice Thomas proceeded to suspend the conviction of the former legislator. He wrote:

“The consequence of not suspending the conviction of the second accused is drastic not only for the second petitioner but even for the nation. 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.”

It is also important to note that as a result of this verdict, Faizal’s disqualification as a member of parliament was also stayed, as per the information relayed by the election commission in January. Eventually, last month, his membership of the Lok Sabha was restored by a notification by the secretariat, which read:

“In view of the order of the High Court of Kerala, the disqualification of Shri Mohammed Faizal in terms of the provisions of Article 102(1)(c) of the Constitution of India read with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, has ceased to operate subject to further judicial pronouncements.”

The suspension of the parliamentarian’s conviction was challenged by the union territory administration, as well as the person he allegedly assaulted. Following this, another plea was filed in the top court challenging the restoration of the legislator’s Lok Sabha membership, contending that once a member of the Parliament or of a state legislature was disqualified owing to the operation of Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution read with Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951, he will continue to be disqualified till he is acquitted by a higher court.

Case Title

U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal & Ors. | Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 1644 of 2023 and other connected matters

Click Here To Read/Download Order