‘Conviction Can't Be Suspended Only Because Parliamentarian Will Otherwise Be Disqualified’: Supreme Court While Hearing MP Mohammed Faizal’s Case

A bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan was hearing a couple of pleas – one by the administration of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep, and another by the complainant who accused the parliamentarian of attempting to murder him – challenging a January 25 order of a single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court suspending Faizal’s conviction and sentence.

The expenditure of conducting a by-election was cited as one of the reason to stay the conviction by the high court. However, during the hearing today, the top court raised its concerns about holding a conviction and sentence in abeyance only on the ground of the monetary loss caused to the exchequer in organising this administrative exercise. “Because there is going to be a disqualification, we are going to suspend his conviction...That cannot be the reason,” Justice Nagarathna said.

“We are thinking out loud because we have not made up our mind yet,” the judge told Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, “Should the matter be remitted to be reconsidered?”

The senior counsel disputed the contention that no reason other than the one was cited by the single-judge bench of the Kerala High Court while staying Faizal’s conviction. He also added, “The MP is currently attending the Parliament. The law makes it clear that election is also a consideration.” On the issue of sending the matter back to the high court to be considered again, Singhvi suggested, “I have to take instructions, but two things can be done - either I argue this when this matter is taken up next time, or provided that Mohammed Faizal is allowed to attend the Parliament, this matter can be heard here or there.”

The bench briefly mulled over whether permission could be granted to the embattled legislator to continue attending the Parliament, even if the matter were remitted to the high court for a fresh hearing. Additional Solicitor-General KM Nataraj told the bench, “In the fitness of things, it is better that the high court considers all the aspects and the entire issue can be kept open. To be allowed permission to attend the Parliament, the MP can make an application to the high court.”

“When the respondent has succeeded, why should he go back?” Singhvi shot back.

Justice Nagarathna said, “If you are not agreeable to this arrangement, we will hear the matter. A date has to be given.”

“We are ready to argue,” Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy, appearing for the private complainant, told the bench.

After a heated deliberation over the next date of hearing, with Guruswamy calling for a shorter date, while Singhvi urged the court to adjourn the hearing for a month, the bench finally agreed to list the matter on Tuesday, August 22.

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