Right To Contest Election Not A Fundamental Right: Madhya Pradesh High Court Refuses To Suspend Conviction Of Youth Congress Member

Dismissing an application for suspension of conviction filed by an aspiring election candidate in the Ratlam (Urban) constituency, the Indore bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that the power of suspension of conviction can only be exercised in the very ‘exceptional circumstances’.

The court further observed that the appellant who claims to be an active member of the Youth Congress, has failed to establish that not staying his conviction would cause irreparable consequences and injustice.

“…. Right to contest the election is not a fundamental right. It is a statutory right. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 307 of IPC for three counts and his presence has been established at the spot and a knife has also been recovered from him. Apart from that, he is a habitual offender having eight criminal cases”, Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla observed in the final order.

The court also analysed the decisions in Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) and Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab & Anr., (2007) to make the following observations:

i) Unless the attention of the Court is drawn to the specific consequences that would follow on account of the conviction, the person convicted cannot obtain an order of stay of conviction.

ii) If the offence is of such a serious nature, then the conviction cannot be suspended.

The decisions in Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Iswarbhai Modi & Anr.  2023 LiveLaw (SC) 598 and Mohammed Faizal v. UT Administration of Lakshadweep & Ors (SLP(Crl) No. 12819/2023) would not apply to the factual matrix of the current case, the court noted. In both these cases, the petitioners had incurred disqualification from conviction under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 when they were the sitting members of the parliament.

However, in the case at hand, the appellant has only been under consideration as one of the probable candidates for the party he is affiliated with in the coming Assembly Elections, the court further observed. As per the court, the appellant has not been able to make out any exceptional circumstances that necessitate a stay on his conviction.

“... In the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra), it was held that the suspension of conviction can be resorted to a rare case depending on the said fact of the case. In the present case, upon perusal of the application, it is evident that except one letter of President of District Congress Committee, whereby the name of the appellant has also been included along with other aspirants for contesting the assembly election, there is no other material for making the present case as exceptional case, which would lead to injustice or irreversible consequences”, the court concluded.

The counsel for the appellant had contended that the sentence of the appellant had already been suspended and he wouldn’t be able to contest the election in view of the provisions of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 unless the order of conviction is stayed as well. On the other hand, as per the submissions of the respondent state, the appellant had been convicted under Sections 148, 307 r/w 149 of IPC and 25(1b) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act for three counts.

The State therefore tried to convince the High Court that the appellant could only be regarded as a ‘hardened criminal’ who is facing eight criminal cases.