New Delhi: The Constitution bench of the Indian Supreme Court’s ruling that “disqualification” cannot be added to the clause that empowers the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers to decide their cabinet, is the latest in a series of judgements on the issue.
The court, however, said it expected the Prime Minister to act with “constitutional morality and responsibility and choose not to take ministers with doubtful integrity.
“Will any reasonably prudent master leave the keys of his chest with a servant whose integrity is doubted,” the bench asked in its ruling on a petition that sought to bar Members of Parliament (MPs) with criminal backgrounds, including those charged but not convicted, from being appointed ministers at the Centre and in states.
India bans those convicted of serious crimes from holding office, but not those facing charges.
Landmark judgement
In a landmark judgement last year, the Supreme Court ruled that MPs sentenced to more than two years in jail should be disqualified, even if they have appealed to a higher court. The Congress-led UPA bid to undo that with an ordinance fell through.
Earlier this year, in order to expedite proceedings against sitting MPs and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) in criminal cases, the Supreme Court had set a deadline for lower courts to complete trial in cases involving lawmakers within a year of framing of charges.
However, earlier this month, the country’s top court said that it cannot consider the parliamentarians a distinct category and it cannot fast-track criminal cases against MPs alone.
On July 10, 2013 the SC had ruled that an MP or MLA would be immediately disqualified if convicted by a court in a criminal offence with a jail sentence of two years or more. The Supreme Court had struck down Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which protects convicted legislators from disqualification if they appeal before a higher court within three months.
Holding that Parliament had exceeded its powers in providing such an immunity, the court had ruled that Parliament lacked legislative competence to enact this provision since it was in direct conflict with Articles 101 and 102 of the Constitution, which stipulate the principles for those who want to contest elections as well as those who have been elected.
The court had ruled that no relaxation could be given to a sitting MP or an MLA when an ordinary citizen is barred from contesting elections if he stands convicted on the date of polling.
The Election Commission of India has repeatedly said candidates with a criminal past should be barred from contesting elections and called for a law.
