The Supreme Court on Friday dismissed
an appeal filed challenging the Delhi High Court’s verdict of February 6 earlier this
year, upholding the constitutional validity of an amendment to the Representation
of the People Act, 1951 allowing undertrials, except convicts, to contest elections,
which was earlier barred by the Apex Court.
________
"Registration of an FIR and confinement is not sufficient to bar a person from contesting election", said the Supreme Court
________
 |
| (Supreme Court of India, New Delhi) |
Dismissing the appeal, a Bench headed
by Chief Justice H.L. Dattu said. "If
there is conviction and sentence, we can understand but the registration of an
FIR and confinement is not sufficient to bar a person from contesting election."
Earlier,
the Parliament had passed the Representation of the People (Amendment and
Validation) Act, 2013 (Number 29 of 2013) adding a further proviso to sub-section
(5) of Section 62 of the R.P. Act, 1951, to the effect that if a person who is
enrolled in the electoral roll is confined in a prison or in lawful custody of
police, he will continue to be an elector notwithstanding the prohibition
against voting under the said sub-section.
The Amendment to the Representation of
the People Act, 1951 had been introduced last year by Parliament to get over the July 10 judgment
of the Apex Court in The CEC vs. Jan Chaukidar and Ors [
CA Nos. 3040-3041 of 2004] wherein the Apex Court had
held that a person, who is in jail or in police custody, cannot contest
election to legislative bodies, bringing to an end an era of under trial
politicians fighting polls from behind bars. The Apex Court had said that only
a voter can contest election and a person in police custody has no right to
vote.
The Representation of the People
(Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013 (Number 29 of 2013) contained a validation
clause providing that nothing contained in any judgment, decree or order of any
court, tribunal or other authority shall have any effect on the amendments made
to Section 7 and Section 62 of the Act by the amendment Act. This effectively meant that the position as
obtained prior to the Apex Court’s judgment of 10.07.2013 would continue to
apply.
Though the Centre had sought for a
review of the Apex Court’s judgment of July 10, the Supreme Court, on
November 19 last year, had dismissed the Centre's plea saying it is not
necessary to look into the issue in view of amendments brought about by
Parliament to the Representation of People Act.
Considering
the challenge to the Amendments brought about to the Representation of the People
Act, the Delhi High Court had observed
that not allowing an arrested accused or an undertrial to contest election on
the ground that he has no right to vote while incarcerated "would leave the door open for vendetta politics".
"Extending
curtailment of the right to vote of a person in prison to the right to stand in
election would, in our opinion, leave the door open for practice of 'vendetta
politics' by ruling parties...All that a
politician/ruling party-in-power would need to do to prevent rivals from
contesting an election is to ask the police to file a case and to arrest the
rivals,"
it had said.
The Supreme Court concurred
with the ratiocination of the Delhi High Court and hence, dismissed the appeal.
