Consensual Relationship That Later Turns Sour Is Not Rape: Andhra Pradesh High Court Grants Bail in Breach of Promise Case Double Presumption of Innocence Applies; No Interference Unless Trial Court Judgment Is Perverse: Allahabad High Court in Murder Appeal Under BNSS A Single Act of Corruption Warrants Dismissal – 32 Years of Service Offers No Immunity: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds ASI’s Removal Suit Against Trustee Without Charity Commissioner’s Consent Is Statutorily Barred: Bombay High Court Inherent Power Under Section 528 BNSS Not a Substitute for Article 226 When FIR Is Under Challenge Without Chargesheet or Cognizance Order: Allahabad High Court Possession Without Title Is Legally Insubstantial: Gujarat HC Dismisses Appeal By Dairy Cooperative Over Void Land Transfer You Can Prosecute a Former Director, But You Can’t Force Him to Represent the Company: Calcutta High Court Lays Down Clear Limits on Corporate Representation in PMLA Cases Conviction Cannot Rest on Tainted Testimony of Injured Witnesses in Isolation: Bombay High Court Acquits Five in Murder Case One Attesting Witness is Sufficient if He Proves Execution and Attestation of Will as Required by Law: AP High Court Land Acquisition | Delay Cannot Defeat Just Compensation: P&H High Court Grants Enhanced Compensation Despite 12-Year Delay in Review Petitions by Landowners Allegations Implausible, Motivated by Malice: Kerala High Court Quashes Rape Case After Finding Abuse Claims a Counterblast to Civil Dispute Adoptions Under Hindu Law Need No Approval from District Magistrate: Madras High Court Declares Administrative Rejection of Adoptive Birth Certificate as Illegal

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