- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
K. Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appeal arises from the election to the 14-Kuthuparamba Legislative Assembly Constituency held on 10-05-2001 in which the respondent was declared elected and the appellant lost. Prior to the election, on 09-04-1997, the respondent had been convicted by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kuthuparamba, for offences under Sections 143, 148, 447, 353, 427 read with Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Property Act, 1984. He received several sentences that were ordered to run consecutively, aggregating to 29 months of imprisonment. The respondent appealed, and on 25-07-2001 the Court of Session upheld the convictions but directed the sentences to run concurrently, thereby reducing the effective imprisonment on each count to less than two years.
The appellant filed an election petition under Section 100(1)(a) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA). On 05-10-2001, the Designated Election Judge dismissed the petition, holding that the appellate judgment had “wiped out” the disqualification because no individual sentence was for two years or more. This appeal under Section 116-A of the RPA challenges that decision.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether a disqualification that existed on the date of election under Section 8(3) of the RPA can be retrospectively “wiped out” by a subsequent appellate judgment reducing the sentences below two years.
- For purposes of Section 8(3) of the RPA, should disqualification be determined by (a) the aggregate term of imprisonment when sentences are consecutive, or (b) the term of imprisonment imposed for each individual offence when none exceeds two years, irrespective of whether sentences are consecutive or concurrent?
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- Disqualification must be fixed with reference to the date of election; subsequent appellate modification cannot cure the defect.
- When sentences are directed to run consecutively the total period of incarceration controls; even if made concurrent, the aggregate term should be considered to fulfil the objective of Section 8(3).
Respondent's Arguments
- Only the sentence for each individual offence is relevant; if none is two years or more, disqualification under Section 8(3) is not attracted.
- Subsequent appellate judgment reducing effective sentences eliminates disqualification retrospectively, relying on the principle recognized in Manni Lal and Vidya Charan Shukla.
- Cites Bashir Ahmed v. Aphtar Hussain Khan (1937) to argue that “offence” in singular cannot be read in plural to aggregate sentences.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Vidya Charan Shukla v. Purshottam Lal Kaushik (1981) 2 SCC 84 | Affirmed that setting aside or reduction of conviction/sentence in appeal retrospectively removes election disqualification. | Relied upon by the Election Judge; current Bench expresses reservations, signalling need for reconsideration by a Constitution Bench. |
| Manni Lal v. Parmai Lal (1970) 2 SCC 462 | Held that an appellate reversal or reduction eliminates disqualification from the date of conviction. | Formed the foundation for Vidya Charan Shukla; current Bench questions its correctness. |
| Bashir Ahmed v. Aphtar Hussain Khan (Election Petitions Commission, U.P., 26-08-1937) | Interpreted the word “offence” in singular, rejecting aggregation of sentences for disqualification. | Cited by the respondent to support the view that each separate offence must meet the two-year threshold individually. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Bench scrutinised Article 191 of the Constitution, which permits Parliament to prescribe disqualifications, and Section 8 of the RPA, which mandates disqualification upon conviction with a sentence of not less than two years. The court observed:
- Disqualification or qualification must be assessed as of the date of election under Section 100(1)(a) of the RPA.
- The proposition accepted in Manni Lal and followed in Vidya Charan Shukla—that a subsequent reduction or setting aside of sentence retrospectively removes disqualification—“is open to question”.
- With respect to Section 8(3), there is an unresolved interpretive issue on whether the aggregate sentence (when sentences run consecutively) or only the individual sentence for each offence is determinative.
- Given the constitutional and statutory significance, and the absence of any authoritative precedent of the Supreme Court on the second issue, both questions warrant consideration by a larger Bench.
Holding and Implications
ORDER — The matter is referred to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India for constitution of an appropriate Constitution Bench.
Implications: The Supreme Court did not decide the merits of the disqualification but flagged serious doubts about existing precedent. A forthcoming Constitution Bench will authoritatively settle (1) whether post-election appellate relief can retrospectively cure disqualification, and (2) how sentences must be measured under Section 8(3) of the RPA. Until then, the legal position articulated in Manni Lal and Vidya Charan Shukla remains uncertain.
Order
1. This appeal under Section 116-A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA, 1951, for short) deserves to be placed for hearing before a Constitution Bench for the reasons stated hereunder.
2. 14, Kuthuparamba Legislative Assembly Constituency went to polls on 10-5-2001. The respondent was declared elected. The appellant lost in the election.
3. The undisputed facts are that vide judgment dated 9-4-1997 passed by the Judicial Magistrate of the First Class, Kuthuparamba (Annexure P-1), the respondent was held guilty of offences punishable under Sections 143, 148, 447, 353, 427, all read with Section 149 IPC and also under Section 3(2)(e) of the Prevention of Damage to Property Act, 1984 read with Section 149 IPC and sentenced to several terms of imprisonment. All the sentences were directed to run consecutively. The total term of imprisonment which the accused was required to undergo was of 29 months though individually the term of imprisonment awarded for each of the several offences was less than two years. The respondent preferred an appeal laying challenge to the conviction and the sentences passed on him. Vide the judgment dated 25-7-2001, the Court of Session upheld the conviction and the sentences passed on the respondent but subject to the modification that the substantive sentences of imprisonment passed by the trial court were made to run concurrently (instead of consecutively). Thus, undisputedly, on the date of his election, the respondent was a convict sentenced to the term of 29 months' imprisonment passed by the trial court.
4. The appellant filed an election petition putting in issue the respondent's election, under Section 100(1)(a) of RPA, 1951. The election petition came to be decided on 5-10-2001 before which date the criminal appeal preferred by the respondent had stood decided. The learned Designated Election Judge of the High Court, by the impugned judgment, directed the election petition to be dismissed forming an opinion that the verdict of guilty and the sentence passed in the criminal appeal had wiped out the verdict of guilty and the sentences of imprisonment passed by the trial court and as the total term of imprisonment awarded by the appellate court was for less than two years, in view of the sentences having been made to run concurrently, the disqualification too had stood wiped out. The learned Designated Election Judge has placed reliance on the decisions of this Court in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Purshottam Lal Kaushik (1981) 2 SCC 84 and Manni Lal v. Parmai Lal (1970) 2 SCC 462.
5. In Manni Lal case (1970) 2 SCC 462 a two-Judge Bench of this Court took the view that setting aside of the conviction and sentence in appeal has the effect of wiping out retrospectively the disqualification. Manni Lal case (1970) 2 SCC 462 was followed by a three-Judge Bench in Vidya Charan Shukla case (1981) 2 SCC 84 on the principle of stare decisis. The learned Judges noted that correctness of the decision in Manni Lal case (1970) 2 SCC 462 was not disputed before them. Thus the view of the law taken by the two-Judge Bench in Manni Lal case (1970) 2 SCC 462 was affirmed by the three-Judge Bench in Vidya Charan Shukla case (1981) 2 SCC 84.
6. We have some reservations about the correctness of the view taken in Manni Lal case (1970) 2 SCC 462 and Vidya Charan Shukla case (1981) 2 SCC 84. As per Article 191 of the Constitution, a person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of the Legislative Assembly if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament. The relevant part of Section 8 of RPA, 1951 provides that a person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. The disqualification or want of qualification to be chosen to fill the seat is to be fixed by reference to the date of election of the returned candidate within the meaning of clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 100 of RPA. The proposition that the candidate, though disqualified on the date of his being chosen, would become qualified by reference to subsequent event which may happen during the pendency of an election petition is, in our humble opinion, open to question.
7. The other controversy centres around the interpretation of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of RPA, 1951. According to the appellant, the several sentences passed on a person on his being convicted may be individually less than two years each but in view of the court having directed the sentences of imprisonment to run consecutively, the convict would come out of the prison only after serving out the total term of imprisonment which being two years or more, the disqualification would be attracted. It was also submitted that even if the sentences are made to run concurrently yet it is the total term of imprisonment which should be taken into account for fulfilling the object sought to be achieved by the disqualification provision. On the other hand, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent, that whether consecutive or concurrent, it is the term of imprisonment for each individual offence which is relevant and must govern the applicability of the disqualification provision. Whatever be the total term of imprisonment, if the individual term of substantive imprisonment in respect of any one out of the several offences found proved is not two years or more, sub-section (3) of Section 8 of RPA is not attracted, is the submission on behalf of the respondent. Reliance has been placed on a decision by the Election Petitions Commission, U.P in Bashir Ahmed v. Aphtar Hussain Khan decided on 26-8-1937 wherein, interpreting Section 69(i)(e) of the Government of India Act, 1935 the Commission has taken the view that the word “offence” used in singular cannot be read in plural as “offence”.
8. As to the first question, as already said, we have some reservation about the correctness of the view taken in Vidya Charan Shukla (1981) 2 SCC 84 and Manni Lal (1970) 2 SCC 462 cases and the former being a three-Judge Bench decision, the issue deserves to be dealt with by a Constitution Bench. As to the second question, there is no decided case of this Court available and the issue being of far-reaching implications, an authoritative pronouncement by a Constitution Bench would be conducive to justice and would settle the law.
9. Let the matter be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice of India for constituting an appropriate Bench for hearing the appeal.
Alert