Advocate ML Sharma has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court challenging the ordinance route adopted by the Central Government under Article 123 of the Constitution to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1951..On September 24, 2013 the Union Cabinet had cleared an ordinance which, if it receives Presidential assent, will nullify the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors. [WP(c) 490/2005] on July 10 this year..The Court in Lily Thomas had struck down the constitutional vires of S. 8(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 thereby holding that sitting MPs and MLAs will be disqualified from holding office from the date of conviction in criminal offences that are punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more. S. 8(4) allowed for a 3 month window to the MPs and MLAs to file an appeal or revision against their conviction and further permitted them to retain their membership until the appeal or revision was disposed of..Arguing that the provisions of Article 123 were being misused, Sharma has submitted in his petition that.“Article 123 confers powers on the President to promulgate a law by issuing an Ordinance to enable the executive to deal with the emergent situation. Art. 123 can be invoked only in extra-ordinary emergency circumstances and on 24th September 2013 no such extra-ordinary emergency circumstances existed having a need to issue ordinance upon the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation Bill), 2013. Impugned proceeding has been adopted under mala fide intention for their vested interest to nullify judgment dt. 10th July 2013 only.”.He has also contended that the Representation of the People (Second Amendment and Validation) Bill of 2013 was laid before the Rajya Sabha during the last session but could not be passed; and the government has adopted the Ordinance route to get around this – a step that the Constitution does not envisage..Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in AK Roy v. Union of India [1982(1) SCC 271] Sharma has argued that the, “power [under Article 123] was to be used to meet extra-ordinary situations and not perverted to serve political ends”..Submitting that “Art. 123 cannot be used to nullify effect and judicial verdict passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in any manner”, Sharma has sought for quashing the impugned ordinance proceedings as unconstitutional and malafide..The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed a review petition filed by the Central Government challenging the verdict in Lily Thomas.
Advocate ML Sharma has filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Supreme Court challenging the ordinance route adopted by the Central Government under Article 123 of the Constitution to amend the Representation of the People Act, 1951..On September 24, 2013 the Union Cabinet had cleared an ordinance which, if it receives Presidential assent, will nullify the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors. [WP(c) 490/2005] on July 10 this year..The Court in Lily Thomas had struck down the constitutional vires of S. 8(4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 thereby holding that sitting MPs and MLAs will be disqualified from holding office from the date of conviction in criminal offences that are punishable with imprisonment of 2 years or more. S. 8(4) allowed for a 3 month window to the MPs and MLAs to file an appeal or revision against their conviction and further permitted them to retain their membership until the appeal or revision was disposed of..Arguing that the provisions of Article 123 were being misused, Sharma has submitted in his petition that.“Article 123 confers powers on the President to promulgate a law by issuing an Ordinance to enable the executive to deal with the emergent situation. Art. 123 can be invoked only in extra-ordinary emergency circumstances and on 24th September 2013 no such extra-ordinary emergency circumstances existed having a need to issue ordinance upon the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation Bill), 2013. Impugned proceeding has been adopted under mala fide intention for their vested interest to nullify judgment dt. 10th July 2013 only.”.He has also contended that the Representation of the People (Second Amendment and Validation) Bill of 2013 was laid before the Rajya Sabha during the last session but could not be passed; and the government has adopted the Ordinance route to get around this – a step that the Constitution does not envisage..Relying on the Supreme Court judgment in AK Roy v. Union of India [1982(1) SCC 271] Sharma has argued that the, “power [under Article 123] was to be used to meet extra-ordinary situations and not perverted to serve political ends”..Submitting that “Art. 123 cannot be used to nullify effect and judicial verdict passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in any manner”, Sharma has sought for quashing the impugned ordinance proceedings as unconstitutional and malafide..The Supreme Court had earlier dismissed a review petition filed by the Central Government challenging the verdict in Lily Thomas.