1    

REPORTABLE  

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION  

WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) No. 330 OF 2016    

Lok Prahari, through its General Secretary   

S.N. Shukla                                                                   .... Petitioner   

        Versus  

Election Commission of India & Ors.          .....Respondents   

J U D G M E N T            

Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J  

1 The petitioner, Lok Prahari, is a society registered under the  

Societies’ Registration Act 1860 with objects pertaining to public  

governance and administration. It has invoked the jurisdiction of this  

Court under Article 32 of the Constitution, in the present Public Interest  

Litigation through its General Secretary, who appeared in person. The

2    

following amongst other reliefs have been sought:  

1 “Declare that since the law does not provide for stay of  

conviction, even in case of stay of conviction by the appellate  

court for an offence attracting disqualification under Section 8  

of RP Act, 1951, any such stay order does not have the effect  

of wiping out the disqualification and reviving the membership  

with retrospective effect and consequently, the seat of the  

concerned member is deemed to have beome vacant with  

effect from the date of conviction in terms of Article 101(3)(a)  

and 190(3)(a) of the Constitution.  

 2 Declare that as a consequence of the declaration as per 1  

above, any member of Parliament of State legislature who  

becomes subject to disqualification mentioned in Article  

102(1)(e) or 190(1)(e) shall be liable to penalty under Article  

104/193 notwithstanding any order of the appellate/ revisional  

court purporting to stay his conviction for an offence attracting  

disqualification mentioned in Section 8 of RP Act, 1951....  

3   issue a writ, order of direction in the nature of Mandamus to  

the respondent no. 1 to issue within 24 hours of receipt of  

certified copy of the judgment and order regarding sentence  

the notification regarding disqualification and consequent  

vacancy of the seat of the concerned MP/MLA/MLC with  

effect from the date of his/her conviction as a result of his/her  

disqualification for an offence under Section 8(1)(2) and (3) of  

the Representation of the People Act, 1951.     

4   issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus to  

the respondent no. 1 to ensure action for filing the vacancy of  

the seat of a member of Parliament/State legislature as per  

Section 151 of the RP Act, 1951 disregarding any order of the  

appellate/ revisional court purporting to stay of conviction for  

an offence attracting disqualification mentioned in Section 8 of  

RP Act, 1951....”  

2  An erstwhile member of the Legislative Assembly in the State of  

Uttar Pradesh was convicted of offences under Sections 353, 504 and  

506 of the Penal Code and was sentenced to imprisonment. In appeal,  

the District Court stayed the execution of the sentence and of the  

conviction.

3    

3 The petitioner instituted a Public Interest Litigation before the  

Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Allahabad, seeking a declaration  

that the MLA stood disqualified notwithstanding the stay granted by the  

Sessions Judge. The PIL was dismissed by the High Court on the  

ground that since the appellate court stayed the conviction, the  

disqualification, which would otherwise stand attracted, would not  

operate from the date on which the conviction has been stayed.   

4 The petitioner urges that the seat held by a Member of Parliament  

or of the State legislature becomes vacant upon a disqualification being  

incurred under Article 102 or Article 191, respectively. According to the  

petitioner, once the disqualification is incurred under Section 8 of the  

Representation of the People Act 1951 read with Article 102(1)(e) or  

Article 191(1)(e), the seat becomes vacant effective from the date of  

conviction. Relying on the decision of this Court in B R Kapur v State  

of Tamil Nadu1 , the petitioner contends that under Section 389 of  

Cr.P.C. the appellate court does not have the power to stay conviction  

and can stay only the execution of sentence.   

Article 102 of the Constitution provides thus:  

“102. (1) A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as,  

and for being, a member of either House of Parliament—   

(a) if he holds any office of profit under the Government of  

India or the Government of any State, other than an office  

declared by Parliament by law not to disqualify its holder;   

                                                        1 (2001) 7 SCC 231

4    

(b) if he is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a  

competent court;   

(c) if he is an undischarged insolvent;  

(d) if he is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired  

the citizenship of a foreign State, or is under any  

acknowledgment of allegiance or adherence to a foreign  

State;   

(e) if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by  

Parliament.   

[Explanation.—For the purposes of this clause] a person shall  

not be deemed to hold an office of profit under the  

Government of India or the Government of any State by  

reason only that he is a Minister either for the Union or for  

such State. 2 [(2) A person shall be disqualified for being a  

member of either House of Parliament if he is so disqualified  

under the Tenth Schedule.]”  

Article 191 of the Constitution provides a disqualification in similar terms  

for membership of a legislative assembly or legislative council of a  

state.   

The relevant provision in Section 8 of the Representation of the People  

Act 1951 reads thus:  

“8. Disqualification on conviction for certain offences.—  

[(1) A person convicted of an offence punishable under—   

(a) section 153A (offence of promoting enmity between  

different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth,  

residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to  

maintenance of harmony) or section 171E (offence of bribery)  

or section 171F (offence of undue influence or personation at  

an election) or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section  

376 or section 376A or section 376B or section 376C or  

section 376D (offences relating to rape) or section 498A  

(offence of cruelty towards a woman by husband or relative of  

a husband) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section  

505 (offence of making statement creating or promoting  

enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes or offence relating to  

such statement in any place of worship or in any assembly

5    

engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious  

ceremonies) of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); or   

(b) the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of 1955), which  

provides for punishment for the preaching and practice of  

“untouchability”, and for the enforcement of any disability  

arising therefrom; or   

(c) section 11 (offence of importing or exporting prohibited  

goods) of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); or   

(d) sections 10 to 12 (offence of being a member of an  

association declared unlawful, offence relating to dealing with  

funds of an unlawful association or offence relating to  

contravention of an order made in respect of a notified place)  

of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967);  

or   

(e) the Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act, 1973 (46 of  

1973); or   

(f) the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act,  

1985 (61 of 1985); or   

(g) section 3 (offence of committing terrorist acts) or section 4  

(offence of committing disruptive activities) of the Terrorist  

and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987);  

or   

(h) section 7 (offence of contravention of the provisions of  

section 3 to 6) of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of  

Misuse) Act, 1988 (41 of 1988); or   

(i) section 125 (offence of promoting enmity between classes  

in connection with the election) or section 135 (offence of  

removal of ballot papers from polling stations) or section 135A  

(offence of booth capturing) or clause (a) of sub-section (2) of  

section 136 (offence of fraudulently defacing or fraudulently  

destroying any nomination paper) of this Act; 1 [or]   

[(j) section 6 (offence of conversion of a place or worship) of  

the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991],  [or]   

[(k) section 2 (offence of insulting the Indian National Flag or  

the Constitution of India) or section 3 (offence of preventing  

singing of National Anthem) of the Prevention of Insults to  

National Honour Act, 1971 (69 of 1971) 4 [or];]   

[(l) the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 (3 of 1988);  

or   

(m) the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988); or  

6    

(n) the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (15 of 2002),]   

[shall be disqualified, where the convicted person is  

sentenced to—   

(i) only fine, for a period of six years from the date of  

such conviction;   

(ii) imprisonment, from the date of such conviction and  

shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of  

six years since his release.]   

(2) A person convicted for the contravention of—   

(a) any law providing for the prevention of hoarding or  

profiteering; or   

(b) any law relating to the adulteration of food or drugs; or   

(c) any provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 6 [1961 (28 of  

1961);],   

and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months,  

shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall  

continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years  

since his release.]   

(3) A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to  

imprisonment for not less than two years [other than any  

offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)] shall  

be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall  

continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years  

since his release.]”  

5 It has been contended by the petitioner that there is no provision  

in the Constitution or in the Representation of the People Act 1951 to  

the effect that upon a subsequent stay of conviction by the appellate or  

revisional court, the disqualification shall stand wiped out retrospectively  

and that the membership of a convicted Member of Parliament or of the   

Legislative Assembly or Council shall get revived despite the vacancy  

having occurred from the date of conviction. It has been urged that in  

the absence of any constitutional or statutory provision, stay of

7    

conviction can only operate prospectively to enable a person to contest  

an election again since membership of the legislature terminates  

instantly from the date of conviction.   

6 In response to the present proceedings, a counter affidavit dated  

10 April, 2015 has been filed on behalf of the Election Commission of  

India stating that:  

i) The Election Commission of India supports the first prayer in the  

present Public Interest Litigation;   

ii) The Election Commission of India has issued instructions on  13  

October 2015 by which it has required the Chief Secretaries to  

issue appropriate instructions to the department dealing with  

prosecutions in States and Union Territories to ensure that cases  

of conviction of sitting Members of Parliament or of the State  

legislature are brought to the notice of the Speaker or Chairman of  

the House and the Chief Electoral Officer of the State along with  

the order of conviction within seven days of the order;  

iii) In the decision of this Court in Lily Thomas v Union of India2 it  

was observed that there is an automatic disqualification upon  

conviction and there is no question of postponing the effect of the  

disqualification on the ground of giving the member of the  

legislature an opportunity to exhaust the remedy of appeal and a  

                                                        2 (2013) 7 SCC 653

8    

subsequent stay of conviction cannot retrospectively cure the  

disqualification; and  

iv)  For the purpose of filling the seat which has fallen vacant, it would  

not be necessary to await the decision of the President or  

Governor under Articles 103 and 192. No decision by the President  

or Governor is required on the question of disqualification arising  

out of conviction.  In view of the decision in P V Narasimha Rao v  

State (CBI/SPE)3, only a ‘disputed’ question of disqualification is to  

be referred to the President or Governor.  

7 The Union government has opposed the petition. In the counter  

affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the Union of India through the  

Secretary in the Department of Justice, Ministry of Law and Justice, it  

has been submitted that the issues raised in the present petition have  

already been considered and decided in the decision of this Court in  

Lily Thomas (supra).  Moreover, it has been submitted that no  

challenge has been addressed in the present petition to any provision of  

the Act or the Rules made under it. The petitioner has only relied on the  

provisions of law and on judicial pronouncements on the subject of  

disqualification on conviction.  

                                                        3 (1998) 4 SCC 626

9    

8 In response to the Counter affidavit filed by the first Respondent,  

a Rejoinder dated 20 February 2017 has been filed by the petitioner  

stating that:  

i) The role of the Election Commission commences immediately  

with the conviction of a sitting legislator. The EC need not await  

the receipt of a notification regarding the disqualification and of  

the vacancy in the seat by the Secretariat of the legislative body;  

and   

ii) There exists no legal requirement of a notification regarding the  

vacancy in the seat in view of the categorical provision in Article  

101(3)(2) and Article 190(3)(a) of the Constitution that the seat  

becomes vacant upon conviction.  

9 In response to the Counter affidavit filed by the second  

Respondent, a Rejoinder dated 10 November 2017 has been filed by  

petitioner submitting that revival of membership retrospectively after a  

conviction is stayed, will open a floodgate with convicted MPs/ MLAs/  

MLCs approaching the appellate/ revisional court to get a stay on  

conviction enabling them to continue even without the protection of  

Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act 1951.  

10    

10 Section 3894 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, empowers  

the appellate court, pending an appeal by a convicted person and for  

reasons to be recorded in writing to order that the execution of a  

sentence or order appealed against, be suspended. In the decision in  

Rama Narang v Ramesh Narang5, a Bench of three judges of this  

Court examined the issue as to whether the court has the power to  

suspend a conviction under Section 389 (1). This Court held that an  

order of conviction by itself is not capable of execution under the Code  

of Criminal Procedure, 1973. But in certain situations, it can become  

executable in a limited sense upon it resulting in a disqualification under  

other enactments. Hence, in such a case, it was permissible to invoke  

the power under Section 389 (1) to stay the conviction as well. This  

Court held:   

“19. That takes us to the question whether the scope of  

Section 389(1) of the Code extends to conferring power on  

the Appellate Court to stay the operation of the order of  

conviction. As stated earlier, if the order of conviction is to  

result in some disqualification of the type mentioned in  

                                                        4      Section 389 provides as follows :  

“Suspension of sentence pending the appeal; release of appellant on bail.  (1) Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded  by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended  and, also, if he is in confinement, that he be released on bail, or on his own bond.  (2) The power conferred by this section on an Appellate Court may be exercised also by the High  Court in the case of an appeal by a convicted person to a Court subordinate thereto.  (3) Where the convicted person satisfies the Court by which he is convicted that he intends to  present an appeal, the Court shall,-  (i) where such person, being on bail, is sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three  years, or  (ii) where the offence of which such person has been convicted is a bailable one, and he is on bail,  order that the convicted person be released on bail, unless there are special reasons for refusing  bail, for such period as will afford sufficient time to present the appeal and obtain the orders of the  Appellate Court under sub- section (1); and the sentence of imprisonment shall, so long as he is so  released on bail, be deemed to be suspended.  (4) When the appellant is ultimately sentenced to imprisonment for a term or to imprisonment for life,  the time during which he is so released shall be excluded in computing the term for which he is so  sentenced.”  

5      (1995) 2 SCC 513  

11    

Section 267 of the Companies Act, we see no reason why we  

should give a narrow meaning to Section 389(1) of the Code  

to debar the court from granting an order to that effect in a fit  

case. The appeal under Section 374 is essentially against the  

order of conviction because the order of sentence is merely  

consequential thereto; albeit even the order of sentence can  

be independently challenged if it is harsh and disproportionate  

to the established guilt. Therefore, when an appeal is  

preferred under Section 374 of the Code the appeal is against  

both the conviction and sentence and therefore, we see no  

reason to place a narrow interpretation on Section 389(1) of  

the Code not to extend it to an order of conviction, although  

that issue in the instant case recedes to the background  

because High Courts can exercise inherent jurisdiction under  

Section 482 of the Code if the power was not to be found in  

Section 389(1) of the Code.”  

11 In Navjot Singh Sidhu v State of Punjab 6  a Bench of two  

learned judges of this Court held that a stay of the order of conviction by  

an appellate court is an exception, to be resorted to in a rare case, after  

the attention of the appellate court is drawn to the consequences which  

may ensue if the conviction is not stayed. The court held:    

 “The legal position is, therefore, clear that an appellate Court  

can suspend or grant stay of order of conviction. But the  

person seeking stay of conviction should specifically draw the  

attention of the appellate Court to the consequences that may  

arise if the conviction is not stayed. Unless the attention of the  

Court is drawn to the specific consequences that would follow  

on account of the conviction, the person convicted cannot  

obtain an order of stay of conviction. Further, grant of stay of  

conviction can be resorted to in rare cases depending upon  

the special facts of the case.”  

                                                        6 AIR 2007 SC 1003

12    

12 The above position was reiterated by a Bench of three judges of  

this Court in Ravikant S Patil v Sarvabhouma S Bagali 7 , after  

adverting to the earlier decisions on the issue, viz. Rama Narang v  

Ramesh Narang (supra), State of Tamil Nadu v A. Jaganathan8, K.C.  

Sareen v CBI, Chandigarh9, B.R. Kapur v State of T.N. (supra) and  

State of Maharashtra v Gajanan.10 This Court concluded as follows:-  

“It deserves to be clarified that an order granting stay of  

conviction is not the rule but is an exception to be resorted to  

in rare cases depending upon the facts of a case. Where the  

execution of the sentence is stayed, the conviction continues  

to operate. But where the conviction itself is stayed, the effect  

is that the conviction will not be operative from the date of  

stay. As order of stay, of course, does not render the  

conviction non-existent, but only non-operative. Be that as it  

may. Insofar as the present case is concerned, an application  

was filed specifically seeking stay of the order of conviction  

specifying that consequences if conviction was not stayed,  

that is, the appellant would incur disqualification to contest the  

election. The High Court after considering the special reason,  

granted the order staying the conviction. As the conviction  

itself is stayed in contrast to a stay of execution of the  

sentence, it is not possible to accept the contention of the  

respondent that the disqualification arising out of conviction  

continues to operate even after stay of conviction.”  

13 In Lily Thomas (supra), it was urged that in the absence of  

Section 8(4), a Member of Parliament or of the State Legislature would  

be left without a remedy even if the conviction was “frivolous”. Rejecting  

the submission, this Court held (relying on Ravi Kant Patil (supra):   

“In the aforesaid case, a contention was raised by the  

respondents that the appellant was disqualified from  

contesting the election to the Legislative Assembly under sub-

                                                        7 (2007) 1 SCC 673   8 (1996) 5 SCC 329  9 (2001) 6 SCC 584  10(2003) 12 SCC 432

13    

section (3) of Section 8 of the Act as he had been convicted  

for an offence punishable under Sections 366 and 376 of the  

Penal Code and it was held by the three-Judge Bench that as  

the High Court for special reasons had passed an order  

staying the conviction, the disqualification arising out of the  

conviction ceased to operate after the stay of conviction.  

Therefore, the disqualification under sub-sections (1), (2) or  

(3) of Section 8 of the Act will not operate from the date of  

order of stay of conviction passed by the appellate court  

under Section 389 of the Code or the High Court under  

Section 482 of the Code.”11    

14 These decisions have settled the position on the effect of an order  

of an appellate court staying a conviction pending the appeal. Upon the  

stay of a conviction under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C., the disqualification  

under Section 8 will not operate. The decisions in Ravi Kant Patil and   

Lily Thomas conclude the issue. Since the decision in Rama Narang, it  

has been well-settled that the appellate court has the power, in an  

appropriate case, to stay the conviction under Section 389 besides  

suspending the sentence. The power to stay a conviction is by way of an  

exception. Before it is exercised, the appellate court must be made  

aware of the consequence which will ensue if the conviction were not to  

be stayed. Once the conviction has been stayed by the appellate court,  

the disqualification under sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 of Section 8 of the  

Representation of the People Act 1951 will not operate. Under Article  

102(1)(e) and Article 191(1)(e), the disqualification operates by or under  

any law made by Parliament. Disqualification under the above provisions  

of Section 8 follows upon a conviction for one of the listed offences.  

                                                        11 Id at page 673

14    

Once the conviction has been stayed during the pendency of an appeal,  

the disqualification which operates as a consequence of the conviction  

cannot take or remain in effect. In view of the consistent statement of the  

legal position in Rama Narang and in decisions which followed, there is  

no merit in the submission that the power conferred on the appellate  

court under Section 389 does not include the power, in an appropriate  

case, to stay the conviction. Clearly, the appellate court does possess  

such a power. Moreover, it is untenable that the disqualification which  

ensues from a conviction will operate despite the appellate court having  

granted a stay of the conviction. The authority vested in the appellate  

court to stay a conviction ensures that a conviction on untenable or  

frivolous grounds does not operate to cause serious prejudice. As the  

decision in Lily Thomas has clarified, a stay of the conviction would  

relieve the individual from suffering the consequence inter alia of a  

disqualification relatable to the provisions of sub-sections 1, 2 and 3 of  

Section 8.   

   15 Finally, we may address the relief which has been sought in  

prayer clause 5 by which a direction has been sought to the Union  

Government through the Secretary in the Department of Justice, Ministry  

of Law and Justice, the second Respondent. Prayer clause 5 reads as  

follows :  

“5. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of the  

Mandamus to the respondent no. 2 to-  

(i) issue a circular to the Registrar General/Registrars of

15    

all High Courts to issue suitable instructions to all District and  

Sessions Judges to ensure that 2 certified copies of the  

judgments in cases attracting disqualification of a sitting  

MP/MLA/MLC under Article 102/191 of the Constitution are  

made available to the state counsel within 24 hours from the  

delivery of order regarding sentence for submission to the  

concerned District Magistrate,  

(ii) issue a circular to the Chief Secretaries of the  States/Union Territories for issuing suitable instructions to  

District Magistrates and the District Government Counsel to  

send by speed post/special messenger one certified copy of  

the judgment and order regarding sentence to the Chief  

Election Officer of the state and the other certified copy to the  

Secretary General/Principal Secretary/Secretary of the  

concerned House (Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha/Legislative  

Assembly/Legislative Council.”     

16 No such direction can be issued by the Secretary in the  

Department of Justice to the Registrars General of the High Courts.  

Moreover, following the implementation of the e-courts project, certified  

copies of judgments are made available across all courts in a  

streamlined manner. The affidavit filed by the Election Commission of  

India indicates that the Commission has already issued instructions on  

13 October 2015 to the Chief Secretaries of all states to ensure that  

necessary steps are taken to bring to the notice of the Speaker or  

Chairman as the case may be of the House and the Chief Electoral  

Officer of the state, an order of conviction within a period of seven days  

of the passing of the order. The Election Commission is sufficiently  

empowered to take appropriate steps in accordance with law. No further  

directions are necessary in that regard.                

16    

17 The writ petition shall accordingly stand dismissed. Pending  

application, if any, is accordingly disposed of.  There shall be no order  

as to costs.  

…….................................................CJI     [DIPAK MISRA]  

….……...............................................J      [A M KHANWILKAR]  

…......................................................J                               [Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]  

 New Delhi;   September 26, 2018.