Supreme Court Refuses To Stay HC Order Suspending Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal's Conviction
The Supreme Court, on Monday, issued notice in a plea filed by Union Territory of Lakshadweep challenging the order of Kerala High Court which suspended the conviction and sentence of Member of Parliament Mohammed Faizal in an attempt to murder case. Two petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court, one by the prosecuting agency and the other by the original complainant. Notices were...
The Supreme Court, on Monday, issued notice in a plea filed by Union Territory of Lakshadweep challenging the order of Kerala High Court which suspended the conviction and sentence of Member of Parliament Mohammed Faizal in an attempt to murder case. Two petitions have been filed before the Supreme Court, one by the prosecuting agency and the other by the original complainant. Notices were issued in both the Special Leave Petitions.
A Bench comprising Justice K.M. Joseph and Justice B.V. Nagarathna refused to pass any interim directions staying the order of the Kerala High Court at the present stage.
“We are not inclined to stay the High Court’s order. That would be heard.”
Additional Solicitor General, Mr. K.M. Nataraj appearing for the prosecuting agency submitted that while suspending Faizal’s conviction and sentence the High Court had emphasised on the aspect that bye elections would be an additional burden to the exchequer. The ASG suspected that the High Court had proceeded with the suspension based on the said concern. He also submitted that the decision of the High Court was in the teeth of Section 8 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951, which disqualifies an MP from holding their position, if they are convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for more than two years. In the present case, Faizal was sentenced to imprisonment for ten years.
“The High Court acted as if the burden of conviction would fall on the State exchequer and therefore it is an exceptional case that merits suspension of conviction”, argued the ASG.
He assailed the High Court’s order for being contrary to the settled principle of law for suspending conviction as well as sentence.
Senior Advocate, Mr. Ritin Rai appearing on behalf of Faizal clarified that though the High Court observed that ‘the election has to be held in 2024 and a by-election will cost the exchequer’, it was not the ground for suspension. He apprised the Court that the High Court considered the facts of the case very minutely and thereafter decided that it was a fit case for suspension of conviction and sentence. He further submitted that the High Court had noted that the injuries do not appear to be caused by sharp objects, which is the prosecution’s case.
The ASG argued that to attract the provision of Section 307 IPC (attempt to murder) injury is not required.
The matter is to be next heard on 28th March, 2023.
On January 25, a single bench of the Kerala High Court suspended Faizal's conviction, as a result of which his disqualification as MP also got stayed. The Election Commission of India had in the meanwhile announced the dates for bye-elections in Lakshadweep. The ECI had told the Supreme Court that it will act as per the High Court's order suspending the conviction.
While suspending the NCP leader's conviction, Justice Bechu Kurian of the High Court expressed concerns about the wasteful expenditure of a bye-poll, especially when the term of the Lok Sabha is set to expire within one and a half years. Justice Kurian also noted no dangerous weapons were found to have been used by the accused in the case and that the wound certificates did not indicate any serious injuries.
"....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 atleast. Despite all these exercises and financial burdens, the maximum period for which the elected candidate can function will beonly a period less than fifteen months", the High Court observed in the order. The High Court however refused to suspend the conviction of three other accused persons, but suspended their sentences.
[Case Title: UT Administration of Lakshadweep v. Mohammed Faizal And Ors. SLP(Crl) No. 1644/2023]