No disqualification on being MP, MLA if conviction stayed: SC

New Delhi, Nov 26 (UNI) The Supreme Court has held that if the conviction of a candidate has been stayed by a superior court then the candidate is not disqualified from being a member of either parliament or state legislature.

The ruling came on an election petition filed by Karnataka MLA Ravikanth S Patil who was convicted in a rape case and was sentenced to seven years imprisonment by the trial court on July 28, 2000.

The appellant came in appeal to the Supreme Court against Karnataka High Court judgment, setting aside his election to the state Assembly on the ground that on the date of filing the nomination, he was disqualified from being elected as member of state legislature as per Section 8 (3) of the Representation of the People's Act which states that if a candidate has been sentenced to not less than two years imprisonment, he is then disqualified for six years from the date of his conviction.

Patil filed an appeal against his conviction and sentences in Bombay High Court. The High Court stayed his sentence. Subsequently the assembly elctions were announced in Karnataka in 2004. He then moved an application for stay of his conviction so that he may contest the election. The High Court stayed the conviction on March 26, 2004 and he filed nomination on March 29, 2004.

The returning officer accepted his nomination paper and subsequently he was declared elected to the state assembly. The defeated candidate Sarvabhouma S Bagali challenged the election and the petition of Bagali was allowed by the High Court and the elction of Patil was set aside.

A three-judge bench comprising Chief Justice Y K Sabharwal and Justices C K Thakkar and R V Ravindran, while allowing the appeal of Patil observed, ''We are not called upon to decide the correctness of the order of stay of conviction dated March 26, 2004. all that requires to be noticed is that on the dates of nomination and election, in view of the said order staying conviction, the appellant was not disqualified.

The question, whether subsequently the conviction was set aside in appeal or whether the matter is in further challenge before this court is no relevance for deciding the point in issue. In view of the above, the decision of the high court that the appellant was disqualified as on the date of nomination and that his nomination was improperly accepted cannot be sustained. Resultantly, we allow the civil appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the high court and dismiss the election petition. '' The apex court further said that if the sentence is stayed and the conviction remained, then the candidate stands disqualified.

However, if conviction is kept in abeyance by the superior court, then the disqualification goes.

UNI AKS/SC LL RP DB2008