Conviction Under Section 409 IPC Postulates Strict Proof Of Entrustment; Suspicion However Grave Cannot Substitute Proof: Supreme Court Criminal Prosecution Emanating From Past Matrimonial Relationship Ought Not To Linger After Divorce: Supreme Court Negligence Of Previous Counsel Not A Ground To Reopen Concluded Pre-Charge Evidence Under Section 311 CrPC: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell Cannot Protect Tenant's Possession Under Section 53A Transfer Of Property Act: Delhi High Court Certified Copies Of Registered Sale Deeds Admissible As Secondary Evidence Without Proving Loss Of Original: Gauhati High Court Counsel Representing Deceased Party Must Inform Court Of Death Under Order XXII Rule 10-A CPC: J&K High Court Son Staying In Father's House Out Of Love And Affection Is A Mere Licensee, Cannot Challenge Father's Title: Delhi High Court Conviction For Murder Cannot Stand Where Single Blow Inflicted In Sudden Fight Without Premeditation: Uttarakhand High Court Inability To Trace Suppliers Or Buyers No Ground For Custodial Interrogation Once Recovery Is Effected: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Assemble Peacefully To Celebrate Association Anniversary Is A Fundamental Right; Unlawful Assembly Per Se Not An Offence: Madras High Court Marriage Photographs Can Be Relied Upon To Estimate Quantity Of Gold Ornaments In Matrimonial Disputes: Kerala High Court POCSO Act Not Confined To Securing Convictions, Soul Of Law Lies In Preserving Childhood Dignity & Healing: Madras High Court Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Custodial Death | Pendency Of Criminal Trial No Bar For Awarding Compensation Under Public Law Remedy: Gauhati High Court Suit For Possession Under Section 6 Specific Relief Act Barred If Filed Beyond Six Months Of Dispossession: Madras High Court Subsequent Purchaser Is Representative Of Judgment Debtor, Separate Suit Challenging Execution Sale Barred Under Section 47 CPC: Kerala High Court Statutory Bail Restrictions Melt Down When Pre-Trial Detention Is Prolonged & Trial Is Unlikely To Conclude Soon: Delhi High Court Failure To Apprise Accused Of Right Under Section 50 NDPS Act Vitiates Search & Recovery: J&K & Ladakh High Court Section 12(5) Arbitration Act Inapplicable To Proceedings Commenced Before 2015 Amendment; Executing Court Can't Apply Neutrality Norms Retrospectively: Punjab & Haryana High Court Banks Can Share Sale Proceeds Of Secured Assets Outside Liquidation Estate With Homebuyers Under Compromise Agreement: Kerala High Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad 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