|
EC
tells ROs to strictly comply with past orders
J. Balaji
Chennai,
April 23:
WHILE the nation eagerly awaits the fate of nominations filed by
former Chief Minister J. Jayalalitha to contest four — Andipatti,
Krishnagiri, Pudukottai and Bhuvanagiri — Assembly constituencies,
the Election Commission (EC) has directed the Returning Officers
(ROs) to strictly comply with its direction vis-a-vis disqualification
of convicted candidates.
| Jaya files two more nominations |
| PUDUKKOTTAI: Two more nominations were filed on Jayalalitha’s
behalf for the Pudukottai and Bhuvanagiri constituencies on
Monday. In Pudukottai, Jayalalitha’s nomination was filed by
Pudukkottai municipal councillor K Baskaran. In Bhuvanagiri,
advocate Anbarasan filed the nomination. E. Kandaamy, the returning
officer of the Pudukkottai constituency, was quite surprised
when AIADMK partymen turned up in the afternoon and expressed
their desire to file a nomination on behalf of Jaya. Official
sources said that though the RDO tried to dissuade them, they
insisted that he accept the nomination. When last report came
in, District Collector Shambu Kallolikar was deep in consultation
with legal experts on whether the nomination should be accepted.
— ENS |
The nominations
would be scrutinised on Tuesday at 3 pm. The EC, in its direction
to all Chief Electoral Officers, the EC reiterated its August 28,
1997 order, saying that ‘‘disqualification of candidature
for elections would commence from the date of conviction, regardless
of whether the person intending to be a candidate is out on bail
or not (except those who are already a MP/ MLA).’’
The offense
for which Jayalalitha was convicted in the Tansi land deal case
comes under 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,
which states: ‘‘A person convicted of any other offense
and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years shall
be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue
to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his/her
release.’’
To support
its decision that those ‘‘convicted, but on bail after
getting suspension of the sentence’’ too could not contest
poll, the EC referred to the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High
Court in Purushottanlal Kaushik Vs Vidya Charan Shukla case; and
that of the Supreme Court in Sarat Chandra’s case and said:
‘‘This indicates that suspension of sentence does not
wipe out the conviction and sentence. It was held that a reprieve
is a temporary suspension of the sentence which does not wipe it
out; all that it does is to have an effect on the execution of the
sentence.’’
‘‘If
suspension of sentence during pendency of an appeal does not have
the effect of wiping it out, it is difficult to accept the contention
that the disqualification under Section 8(2) remains arrested or
in abeyance during operation of the suspension order pending appeal
against the conviction and sentence.’’
The EC also
quoted a judgment of the Allahabad High Court in Shri Sachindra
Nath Tripathi Vs Doodnath case, which read: ‘‘If no bail
is granted and the execution of the sentence is not suspended by
the stay orders, then the accused will remain in jail and the only
effect of granting bail is that he is released from the confinement.
Grant of bail does not interfere with the finding of conviction
and that cannot render the disqualification, automatically emerging
from conviction, inoperative.’’
Similarly,
the EC referred to the verdict of the Himachal Pradesh High Court
in Vikram Anand Vs Rakesh Singha case wherein the court had held
that ‘‘..when the appellate court passes an order of suspension
of sentence and/or release on bail a convicted person the order
of his conviction still remains in existence and the disqualification,
suffered by him as a result of conviction and sentence, for a period
of not less than two years as envisaged under Section 8(3) of RP
Act, is not automatically suspended and it continues to be in operation.’’
The Commission
directed that ‘‘the ROs, at the time of scrutiny of nominations,
must take note of the above legal position and decide accordingly
about the validity of the candidature of contestants disqualified
under Section 8 of the RP Act’’.
|
