Supreme Court Ruling on Legislator Disqualification
The Supreme Court, in the case of Lily Thomas vs Union of India, delivered a significant judgment regarding the disqualification of elected representatives.
The Court held that any Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of Legislative Assembly/Council (MLA/MLC) who is convicted of a crime and sentenced to a minimum of two years of imprisonment would be disqualified from their membership of the House with immediate effect.
- This ruling effectively nullified the provision that allowed sitting legislators to continue in office pending appeals against their conviction.
- The judgment aimed to uphold the integrity of the legislative bodies by ensuring that individuals with serious criminal convictions do not hold public office.
- The specific case addressed the validity of Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which had previously protected such legislators.
Therefore, the case Lily Thomas vs Union of India is the correct precedent for the immediate disqualification of MPs and MLAs upon conviction and sentencing.
Important Questions from Constitution Law
- Which criteria are used in legislations for treating juveniles differently from young adults?
(a) Physical development
(b) Economic development
(c) Intellectual development
(d) Socio emotional development
Select the most suitable option : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason(R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The writ of Habeas Corpus can be granted to enable the detainee to argue his case in person.
Reason (R) : Because R Vs. Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Wynne (1992) decided so.
Codes : - Which of the following are matched incorrectly ?
i. Habeas Corpus – ‘To produce the body’
ii. Quo warranto – ‘Issued to a lower court to stop proceedings in a case’.
iii. Prohibition – ‘Issued to a lower court quashing a decision or order’
iv. Mandamus – ‘Commands a person to perform a public duty’. - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) to answer using codes given below :
Assertion (A) : One of the two Acts enacted under List I Entry 66 and the other under List III Entry 25 can be repugnant to each other.
Reason (R) : Because in Annamalai University Vs. Secretary of Inf. and Tourism Department decided so.
Codes : - Read Assertion (A) and Reason (R) and answer using the codes given below :
Assertion (A) : The power under 368 of the Constitution is a constituent power subject to the constitutional scheme as to distribution of legislative power according to entries in the Seventh Schedule.
Reason (R) : Because Sasanka Sekhar Maity Vs. Union of India decided so.
Codes :
