Legatee Can Continue Suit Without Probate, But Decree Contingent on Probate Approval: Orissa High Court    |     Sudden Fight Without Premeditation Led to Fatal Injury, Not Murder: Supreme Court Reduces Conviction from Murder to Culpable Homicide    |     Andhra Pradesh High Court Holds Indefinite Suspension of Bar License Without Reason Violates Natural Justice Principles    |     Statements Recorded Under Section 108 of the Customs Act Do Not Warrant Pre-Arrest Bail: Kerala High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail to Petitioners in Gold Smuggling Case    |     Muslim Law | Delay in Declaring Matrimonial Status Does Not Apply to Divorce Cases: Allahabad HC    |     Absence of Doctor's Certification on Victim's Mental Fitness Makes Dying Declaration Unreliable: Allahabad High Court Acquits Appellants in Dowry Death Case    |     Dying Declaration Can Sustain Conviction Even Without Doctor's Certificate of Fitness: Punjab & Haryana HC Upholds Conviction in Dowry Death Case    |     Mere Allegations of Harassment Do Not Constitute Cruelty Without Sufficient Evidence: Bombay High Court Acquits Man Convicted for Abetment of Suicide and Cruelty    |     Right to Hearing: Petitioners Must Be Heard Before Finalizing FTL of Durgam Cheruvu: Telangana High Court Directs No Demolition Until Decision    |     No Fresh Consent Needed Under Section 50 of NDPS Act Once Accused Elects Search Before Gazetted Officer or Magistrate: Punjab and Haryana High Court    |     Suspicious Circumstances Around the 1993 Will: Wife Declared Dead While Alive: Calcutta HC Voids Probate    |     Extension of Sale Deed Deadline Prima Facie Binding, Time Not Essence of the Contract: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Temporary Injunction in Specific Performance Suit    |     Law Does Not Compel the Impossible : High Court Invokes Doctrine of Impossibility in Pension Eligibility Case    |     Bar Council of India Mandates Criminal Background Checks, Biometric Attendance, and Strict Employment Declarations for Law Students    |     Service Law | Grant of Prosecution Sanction is Not Enough for Sealed Cover: SC Upholds DPC Findings in Favor of IRS Officer    |     Stamp Act | Agreements to Sell with Possession Clauses Are Conveyances and Must Be Stamped Separately: Supreme Court    |     Supreme Court Directs Immediate Implementation of Electronic Road Safety Monitoring Under Motor Vehicles Act    |     Supreme Court Stays Defamation Proceedings Against Shashi Tharoor, Issues Notice on "Person Aggrieved" Under Section 199 CrPC    |     Prolonged Pre-Trial Detention Violates Fundamental Right to Speedy Trial: Bombay High Court Grants Bail in Murder Conspiracy Case    |     Prosecution Failed to Prove Identity of the Exhumed Body: Supreme Court Acquits Police Officers in Custodial Death Case    |    

Supreme Court Refused to Stay Conviction of MP Afjal Ansari

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court of India dismissed the appeal of Afjal Ansari, a Member of Parliament, challenging the Allahabad High Court’s decision to not stay his conviction under the Uttar Pradesh Gangsters and Anti-Social Activities (Prevention) Act, 1986. The Apex Court’s bench, comprising Justices Surya Kant, Ujjal Bhuyan, and Dipankar Datta, upheld the High Court’s ruling, resulting in Ansari’s disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

The Court emphasized the importance of upholding the rule of law in matters of parliamentary representation. Justice Surya Kant, delivering the majority opinion, stated, “The standard for suspending a conviction is contingent upon the unique facts and circumstances of each case.” He further added, “Despite being a Member of Parliament, the appellant cannot be given special treatment when in ordinary circumstances, such treatment may not be available to the common citizen.”

The judgment also addressed the appellant’s concern regarding the impact on his constituency, Ghazipur, which he claimed would go unrepresented. The Court observed that “the electorate’s right to have its elected representative voice its interests before the Parliament is a cornerstone of the system.” However, it was held that the lack of representation stemming from the vacancy could always be addressed by organizing an immediate by-election.

Regarding the developmental projects under the MPLAD Scheme, initiated by Ansari, the Court found no substantial irreversible consequences for the constituency from his disqualification.

Justice Dipankar Datta, in his dissenting opinion, stressed the sanctity of democratic processes and legal accountability. He remarked, “Allowing a convicted parliamentarian to attend parliamentary 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 such parliamentarian.”

The Supreme Court directed the High Court to decide the appeal on its merits at the earliest, emphasizing the need for prompt resolution in cases involving elected representatives.

Date of Decision: 14 December 2023

AFJAL ANSARI VS STATE OF UP

Similar News