On July 17, the Supreme Court of India expressed doubts over Kerala High Court’s reasons for suspending NCP MP Mohammad Faizal’s conviction in an attempt to murder case and considered remitting it to the High Court to be considered afresh. The court’s Division Bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing the petitions challenging the Kerala High Court’s January 25 order suspending Mohd Faizal’s conviction and sentence. The petitions were moved before the Supreme Court by the Union Territory of Lakshadweep’s administration and the victim accusing Faizal of attempting to murder him.
The Kerala High Court’s January 25 order took into account that Faizal’s seat would be vacant and the polls would cost the exchequer as he is an elected representative while granting him a stay on conviction. However, the Supreme Court has raised concerns over the High Court’s rationale for incurring monetary loss while organising the administrative exercise. “Because there is going to be a disqualification, we are going to suspend his conviction…That cannot be the reason,” Justice Nagarathna said.
The court considered whether the matter should be remitted to the High Court to be reconsidered afresh. The court further considered whether Mohd Faizal could be allowed to attend the Parliament, while the High Court reconsidered his case afresh.
The Lakshadweep administration’s counsel, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, said, “In the fitness of things, it is better that the high court considers all the aspects and the entire issue can be kept open. To be allowed permission to attend the Parliament, the MP can make an application to the high court.” However, the accused NCP MP’s counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, responded, “When the respondent has succeeded, why should he go back?”
Justice Nagarathna said, “If you are not agreeable to this arrangement, we will hear the matter. A date has to be given.” Thereafter, the counsels argued over the next date of the hearing. The court listed the case for the next hearing on August 22.Background
Supreme Court Says No Separate Rule for Elected Representatives
On March 29, the Supreme Court remarked that there could not be a separate rule for an elected representative and common people for suspension of conviction and sentence in a criminal case while hearing a plea concerning Mohammad Faizal’s conviction and disqualification from Lok Sabha. The court said, “Unless an appellate court finds that prima facie it’s a case of acquittal, a stay on conviction cannot be given. Just because there is a disqualification, different rules cannot kick in.”
The court made these observations on Kerala High Court’s order which took into account that Faizal’s seat will be vacant and the polls would cost the exchequer as he is an elected representative while granting him a stay on conviction. The court said, “The High Court saying that election expenditure will be increased is totally irrelevant; extraneous; nothing to do with the issue.” Furthermore, it added, “It is only in exceptional cases that a court should stay conviction. This should not be a run-of-the-mill case where you ask and get a stay.”
Kerala High Court Suspends Mohd Faizal’s Conviction
On January 25, the Kerala High Court suspended Faizal’s conviction and sentence for an attempt to murder after he challenged the trial court’s verdict convicting him u/s 143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 342, 448, 427, 506 read with 149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) relating to offences relating to rioting, attempt to murder, violence and kidnapping. The trial court sentenced Faizal and three others to ten years of rigorous imprisonment on January 11.
The Kerala High Court observed, “The societal interest in averting an expensive election that too, when the elected candidate can continue for a limited period alone if the fresh election is conducted, cannot be brushed aside by this court. The societal interest and the need to have purity in politics and elections will have to be balanced.”
The Kerala High Court suspended the conviction and the sentence for Faizal, while it merely suspended the sentence for the other three accused. It is pertinent to note that the Kerala High Court stated, “The societal interest in averting an expensive election that too, when the elected candidate can continue for a limited period alone if the fresh election is conducted, cannot be brushed aside by this court,” while suspending Faizal’s conviction.
Thereafter, the UT Administration of Lakshadweep challenged the Kerala High Court’s order suspending Faizal’s conviction before the Supreme Court. The court noted that the Kerala High Court’s order requires a deeper examination taking into account the evidence and nature of injuries considering that the victim suffered 16 injuries including injuries from sharp-edged weapons and iron rods. Faizal and three other persons were convicted for attempting to murder Padanath Salih, the son-in-law of former Union minister and Congress leader PM Sayeed.
The UT Administration of Lakshadweep stated in their plea that the consequence of the trial court convicting Faizal of 10 years of rigorous imprisonment was that by operation of Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution read with Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the respondent, who was an elected Member of Parliament from Lakshadweep Constituency, stood disqualified by the operation of law from the date of conviction and the Lok Sabha Constituency of Lakshadweep stood vacated.
The UT argued that “Section 389 CrPC for the purposes of suspension of conviction does not envisage the ground that was referred by the High Court while passing the impugned interim order.” Furthermore, it said that the principles of democracy, purity of elections and decriminalisation of politics have all been accepted and acknowledged by the High Court but ignored by the High Court while passing the interim impugned order.
It submitted that the Kerala High Court had ignored the object and spirit of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution. In the entire impugned interim order, there is no iota of discussion on the suspension of sentence, especially when the accused persons have been convicted u/s 307 IPC.
