Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 653

Bench

A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court:

1. A.K. Patnaik, J.
2. S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.

Facts

• The case was filed as a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• According to Section 8(4), a Member of Parliament (MP) or Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) convicted of an offense was not immediately disqualified if they filed an appeal within three months of the conviction. This meant that sitting MPs and MLAs could continue in office despite being convicted of criminal offenses.
• The petitioners, including Lily Thomas, argued that this provision was discriminatory because an ordinary citizen convicted of a similar offense would immediately be disqualified from contesting elections, but an elected representative was given extra protection.
• The petitioners claimed that Parliament had no authority to enact Section 8(4) because the Constitution does not differentiate between sitting MPs/MLAs and candidates contesting elections.
• They also argued that Article 102(1)(e) and Article 191(1)(e) provide for disqualification upon conviction, without any exception.

Issues

1. Is Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 unconstitutional?
2. Can Parliament enact a law that allows convicted MPs and MLAs to continue in office while ordinary citizens face immediate disqualification?
3. Does Section 8(4) violate the principle of equality under Article 14 of the Constitution?

Ratio Decidendi (Legal Principle)

• Parliament lacks the power to delay disqualification: The Supreme Court held that Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution do not grant Parliament the power to delay the disqualification of convicted MPs and MLAs.
• Immediate disqualification upon conviction: The Court ruled that as soon as a sitting MP or MLA is convicted for an offense under Section 8(1), (2), or (3), they stand disqualified from holding office immediately.
• Section 8(4) is unconstitutional: The provision was declared ultra vires (beyond the powers) of the Constitution because it created an unjustifiable classification between elected representatives and ordinary citizens.

Observations

• The Constitution does not distinguish between a person contesting elections and a person already elected when it comes to disqualification.
• Corrupt and criminal politicians should not be allowed to continue in office simply because they file an appeal.
• The Court noted that corruption and criminalization of politics undermine democracy, and allowing convicted politicians to remain in office harms the public trust in governance.
• The doctrine of separation of powers does not permit Parliament to override constitutional provisions on disqualification.

Decision

• The Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, declaring it unconstitutional.
• MPs and MLAs convicted of an offense under Section 8 of the Act are immediately disqualified, even if they file an appeal.
• The judgment ensures that lawmakers convicted of criminal offenses cannot continue in office under the protection of a legal loophole.

Important Terms

1. Representation of the People Act, 1951

• This Act lays down the qualifications and disqualifications for contesting elections and being a member of Parliament or State Legislatures.
• Section 8 deals with disqualification on conviction for certain offenses.

2. Section 8(4) of the Act (Now Struck Down)

• Earlier, MPs and MLAs convicted of an offense could continue in office if they filed an appeal within three months.
• This provision was declared unconstitutional in this case.

3. Article 102(1)(e) & Article 191(1)(e) (Disqualification of MPs and MLAs)

• These Articles state that a person shall be disqualified from being a Member of Parliament or State Legislature if they are disqualified under any law made by Parliament.
• The Court ruled that Parliament cannot create exceptions for sitting MPs/MLAs through laws like Section 8(4).

4. Article 14 (Right to Equality)

• The petitioners argued that ordinary citizens convicted of a crime face immediate disqualification from contesting elections, whereas MPs and MLAs were given special privileges.
• The Court ruled that this unequal treatment violated Article 14 and was unconstitutional.

5. Ultra Vires (Beyond the Power)

• The Court held that Section 8(4) was ultra vires the Constitution, meaning Parliament had no authority to enact such a provision.