Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

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

Latest Legal News