Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013

• Lok Sabha on 6 September 2013 passed the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013. Rajya Sabha already passed the bill on 27 August 2013. The Bill was passed in Lok Sabha without any discussion.
• The aim of the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013 is to negate the recent Supreme Court verdict on disqualification of convicted legislators.
• It is important to note that on 10 July 2013, the Supreme Court of India upheld the decision of Patna High Court that people in police custody cannot contest the polls.

Rulings of the Supreme Court of India and the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013

• The Supreme Court of India, in the case of Chief Election Commissioner vs Jan Chowkidar, on 10 July 2013 upheld the decision of the Patna High Court that any person confined in prison or lawful police custody is not entitled to vote under the Section 62 of The Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951. Also, the Apex Court gave its verdict that the imprisoned person is not entitled to contest the elections to the Parliament of India or the State Legislatures.
• The Supreme Court of India in the case of Lily Thomas vs Union of India, held the decision that Section 8(4) of the RPA that enables the MPs and MLAs who are convicted of any crime or illegal offence while serving the term as the members, to continue in the office until the appeal has been disposed off against the conviction, is absolutely unconstitutional.
• Now the amendments are proposed by Ministry of Law and Justice.
• A proviso added to sub-section (4) of section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 states that the convicted member shall continue to take part in proceedings of Parliament or Legislature of a state but he or she shall neither be entitled to vote nor draw salary and allowances till the appeal or revision is finally decided by the court.
• As per the amendment, a lawmaker would not lose his right to vote if under vb arrest even for a short duration and thereby would retain his right to contest a poll. A public representative will get 90 days time to seek revision but on condition that a higher court-stay is obtained against the conviction.

Thus this amendment seeks to override supreme court decision.

• This ruling could see several lawmakers in both parliament and state assemblies lose their seats. Politicians had feared registration of false cases by their rivals especially on the eve of an election. At an all-party meeting held earlier, the parties had united in expressing their dissent over the Supreme Court's ruling.
•  The Supreme Court in its landmark Judgement on 11 July 2013 barred Persons in Jail or Police Custody from contesting election for legislative bodies. The Supreme Court’s decision would help in bringing an end to the era of the under trial politicians, who contest elections from behind the bars. 
• The Supreme Court ruled that only an elector can contest the polls and the elector ceases the right to cast vote due to confinement in prison or being in custody of Police. The court, however, made it clear that disqualification will not be applicable to person subjected to preventive detention, under any law. 
• The Supreme Court Bench that comprised Justice AK Patnaik and Justice SJ Mukhopadhayay, while referring to the Representation of Peoples’ Act said that the Act (Section 4 & 5) lays down the qualifications for membership of the House of the People and Legislative Assembly and one of the qualifications laid down is that he must be an elector.
•  The court passed the order on an appeal filed by the Chief Election Commissioner and others challenging the order of Patna High Court that barred people in Police custody from contesting polls. The Judgement of the Supreme Court has confirmed 2004 ruling of the Patna High Court that said if - a jailed person can’t vote, than a jailed person can’t contest election.
•  The Apex Court supported the decision of Patna High Court by quoting “We do not find any infirmity in the findings of the High Court in the impugned common order that a person, who has no right to vote by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (5) of section 62 of the 1951 Act is not an elector and is, therefore, not qualified to contest the election to the house of the people or the legislative assembly of a state,”.
•  The SC Bench in its Judgement cited Section 62(5) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 (Acts of Parliament) that no person shall vote in any election if he is confined in a prison, whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise, or is in the lawful custody of the police. Reading sections 4, 5 and 62(5) together, the apex court came to the conclusion that a person in jail or police custody cannot contest election.

  Comment

• This decision of the Supreme Court would bar the criminal elements from entering the Parliament and State Assemblies and keep the house clean.  The judgement may change the future of Indian Politics in the coming time.
•