Context:

The Kerala High Court’s decision to suspend the verdict of the Kavaratti District and Sessions Court in which sitting MP P.P. Mohammed Faizal was convicted and sentenced to 10 years in prison for attempted murder has raised questions on whether disqualification for conviction is final or revocable. 

Provisions for disqualification:

• Article 102 of the Constitution:

• • It specifies that a person shall be disqualified for contesting elections and being a Member of Parliament under certain conditions. 
  • These include holding an office of profit, being of unsound mind or insolvent, or not being a citizen of India. 
  • It also authorizes Parliament to make law determining conditions of disqualifications. There are analogous provisions for members of state legislatures.

• The Representation of the People Act, 1951:
  • The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. 
  • The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. 
  • There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided.

The Differential treatment of candidates: 

• There is an exception for sitting members, which was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). 
• In 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. 
• In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of India). 
• It stated that Article 102 empowers Parliament to make law regarding disqualification of a person “for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament” and interpreted this phrase to mean that whereas Parliament could specify conditions for disqualification, those conditions would apply equally to candidates and sitting members. 
  • Therefore, the exception carved out for sitting members was unconstitutional.

News Source: The Hindu