Subsequent Declaration Of Juvenility Does Not Vitiate Conviction On Merits: Supreme Court Borrowers Cannot Ignore Bank Accounting Systems And Suspense Accounts To Claim Arbitrary Reductions In Loan Dues: Supreme Court Re-employed Judicial Officers Cannot Claim 6th Pay Commission Scales: Supreme Court Supreme Court Slams High Court For Erroneously Exercising Review Jurisdiction On 'Mistaken Notion', Restores Employee's ACP Benefits Trademark Infringement: Defendant Can Cross-Examine Plaintiff On Use Of Brand Name Even If Written Statement Is Not On Record: Supreme Court 'Interest And Welfare Of Child Would Be Best Served': Supreme Court Invokes Parens Patriae In Contempt Plea; Revokes Own Custody Order Mere Absence From MCA Records Cannot Absolve Accused Under Section 138 NI Act If Prima Facie Role Is Shown: Punjab & Haryana High Court Incomplete Or Defective Real Estate Application Cannot Claim Deemed Registration Under Section 5(2) Of RERA Act: Orissa High Court Mere Criminal Antecedents Cannot Justify Invoking 'Organized Crime' Offence Under Section 111 BNS Without Fulfilling Statutory Ingredients: Madhya Pradesh High Court 'Testator's Character & Prior Gifts Justify Unequal Distribution': Madras High Court Upholds Holographic Will Minority Status Cannot Arrest Limitation Period For Appeal If Minor Was Represented By Natural Guardian In Original Proceedings: Madhya Pradesh High Court Mere Admission Of Property Boundaries In Family Partition Deeds Destroys Coparceners' Claim That Land Remains Joint Ancestral Property: Karnataka High Court Mesne Profits Must Reflect Open Market Letting Value Rather Than Static Contractual Rates: Delhi High Court Law Graduates Who Fail To Clear AIBE Within Two Years Cannot Practice In Any Court, Tribunal Or Revenue Authority: Allahabad High Court Bombay High Court Slams 'Growing Tendency' To Bypass GST Appeals, Says 'Natural Justice' Not A Blanket Excuse For Writ Petitions Proportionate Cost Only Can Be Awarded On Decreed Amount, Not On Total Plaint Valuation: Kerala High Court

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