The Supreme Court today agreed to hear Mohammed Faizal's plea on Tuesday complaining that he has not been reinstated back to the Parliament despite the fact that his conviction has been suspended by the Kerala High Court order.
A bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said that list the matter tomorrow and tagged the petition related to the matter.
Nationalist Congress Party (NCP) leader Mohammed Faizal has moved the Supreme Court stating that even though his conviction has been stayed by the Kerala High Court, he has not been reinstated back to the parliament.
Earlier Kerala High Court suspended the conviction and sentence of Lakshadweep MP and Nationalist Congress leader (NCP) leader PP Mohammed Faizal and three others in a case of an attempt to murder.
Kerala HC passed the order on a plea of Faizal and others challenging a trial court's order at Lakshadweep in an attempt to murder case. Faizal filed the application seeking to suspend the 10-year imprisonment. Earlier, the Kavaratti Sessions Court had convicted four persons, including Faizal.
Thereafter, The UT Administration of Lakshadweep has moved the Supreme Court challenging the Kerala High Court order, which suspended the conviction of Lakshadweep MP and Nationalist Congress leader (NCP) leader PP Mohammed Faizal in a case of attempt to murder.
In the plea, the Union Territory of Lakshadweep has challenged the impugned interim order dated January 25, 2023, passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam. Through the impugned interim order, the High Court has suspended the conviction and sentence imposed on Mohammed Faizal by the Sessions Court, Kavarthi, Union Territory of Lakshadweep, till the disposal of the criminal appeal.
The High Court has also suspended the sentence of imprisonment of other accused till disposal of the appeal.
Earlier, the Kavaratti Sessions Court had convicted four persons, including Faizal for committing offences punishable under Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections143, 147, 148, 307, 324, 342, 448, 427, 506 read with 149 relating to offences relating to rioting, attempt to murder, violence, kidnapping.
They were all sentenced to undergo 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and were also directed to pay a fine of Rs one lakh each for attempting to murder Padanath Salih, the son-in-law of former Union Minister PM Sayeed in relation to a political controversy during the 2009 Lok Sabha elections.
The UT Administration of Lakshadweep, in the plea, said that the consequence of Faizal's conviction by the Ld. Sessions Court, Kavarthi on 11.01.2023 was that by operation of Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution read with Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Respondent, who was an elected Member of Parliament from Lakshadweep Constituency, stood disqualified by operation of law from the date of conviction and the Lok Sabha Constituency of Lakshadweep stood vacated.
The Lok Sabha Secretariat had issued a Notification dated 13.01.2023 to the same effect in terms of Article 102(1)(e) of the
Constitution of India read with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, i.e. by virtue of the conviction of the Faizal, he stood disqualified as a member of Lok Sabha representing Lakshadweep Parliamentary Constituency of the Union Territory of Lakshadweep.
Pursuant to this disqualification, the Election Commission of India issued a Press Note dated 18.01.2023 deciding to hold bye-elections to fill the vacancy in the Parliamentary Constituency of Lakshadweep on 27.02.2023.
However, by the impugned interim order dated 25.01.2023, the High Court has suspended the conviction and sentence of the Respondent for offences including Section 307 IPC where the punishment of 10 years rigorous imprisonment was imposed and suspended the sentence of the accused.
The administration said that the interim impugned order has suspended the conviction of the Respondent, only on the basis
of consequences of an election, which are totally irrelevant to the entire issue. Section 389 CrPC for the purposes of suspension of conviction does not envisage the ground that was referred by the High Court while passing the impugned interim order, the UT said.
"That the principles of democracy, purity of elections and decriminalisation of politics have all been accepted and acknowledged by the High Court but ignored by the Hon'ble High Court while passing the interim impugned order," UT said.
"That the High Court has ignored the object and spirit of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Article 102(1)(e) of the Constitution. In the entire impugned interim order, there is no iota of discussion on the suspension of sentence, especially when the Respondent No.1 to 4 (accused persons) have been convicted under Section 307 IPC," the UT said in its plea.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)