SC by majority suspends conviction of disqualified BSP MP Afzal Ansari in 2007 case

The apex court also directed the Allahabad High Court to dispose of the former MP's criminal appeal against his conviction and sentence by June 30, 2024.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday suspended conviction of BSP MP from Ghazipur Afzal Ansari, in view of the severity of consequences faced by him, including his disqualification to contest the forthcoming general elections next year.

A bench of Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan and Dipankar Datta by a majority view of 2:1 granted partial relief to Ansari, allowing him to contest the upcoming Lok Sabha polls but holding that he would not entitled to participate in the proceedings of the House, or have right to cast vote or draw any perks of monetary benefits.

The court also ordered that no notification for bye-election to his constituency should be issued.

The majority view said that if the conviction, allowed to operate, leads to irreparable damage and the convict cannot be compensated in monetary terms or otherwise if acquitted later on, such a case by itself becomes an exceptional situation, warranting interference by the court.

"It would thus be appropriate for the courts to balance the interests of protecting the integrity of the electoral process on one hand, while also ensuring that constituents are not bereft of their right to be represented, merely consequent to a threshold opinion, which is open to further judicial scrutiny," the majority judgment said.

However, Justice Datta, in his 56-page dissenting view, held the right of the appellant to represent a constituency or that of a constituency to be represented by the appellant is not a Constitutional right under Article 326 of the Constitution.

Allowing a convicted Parliamentarian to attend proceedings could not only be derogatory to the dignity of the Parliament but also derogatory to the good sense and wisdom of the people who elected him, he said.

"No court, much less this court, should feel chained by misplaced sympathy towards assumed or imagined ramifications on the constituency of the Parliamentarian/legislator who has been convicted," he wrote.

Senior advocate A M Singhvi for Ansari questioned the validity of the July 24, 2023 judgment by the Allahabad High Court which, though suspended his four year jail term, declined to suspend his conviction by the MP/MLA court of April 19, 2023 for the offences registered in 2007 under the UP Gangsters Act.

Justice Kant, who authored majority judgement with Bhuyan, took into consideration the fact the appellant faced disqualification from contesting elections for a period of 10 years.

"While the pending appeal raises significant legal and factual issues, it is exigent that the appellant’s future not be left hanging in the balance solely due to the said conviction," the bench said.

The bench also noted though the gang chart projected the appellant as a repeat offender, the fact remained that he has not been convicted in any prior case, apart from the case presently under consideration.

In this context, the circumstances served as compelling reasons to advocate for the suspension of his conviction and the consequent disqualification, the majority view said.

"Although ‘moral turpitude’ may carry relevance within the context of elected representatives, the courts are bound to construe the law in its extant state... rather than delving into considerations pertaining to the moral rectitude or ethical character of actions. This is especially true when it is solely motivated by the convicted individual’s status as a political representative, with the aim of disqualification pursuant to the Representation of People Act," it said.

In his separate judgement, Justice Datta said, "In view of a Parliamentarian occupying a coveted position of trust and confidence, a more stringent standard is imperative to suspend the conviction."

He said in no manner can the mandate of the people be pitted against that of a statute simply to nullify such disqualification.

He termed appellant's argument on his constituency going without a representation as a bizarre attempt to use the electorate as a shield to maintain incumbency against clear statutory intent.