Case Title: UT ADMINISTRATION OF LAKSHADWEEP V. MOHAMMAD FAIZAL & ORS.
Case No: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.2501 OF 2023 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.1644 of 2023)
Decided on: 13 February, 2023
CORAM: JUSTICE K.M. JOSEPH, JUSTICE B.V. NAGARATHN
Facts of the Case
The case involves an appeal filed by the U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep against the Order dated 25.01.2023 by the Kerala High Court. This order pertains to Criminal Misc. Application No.1/2023, where the first respondent, Mohammed Faizal, sought suspension of his conviction. Faizal had been convicted on multiple charges under the Indian Penal Code, with a ten-year term for Section 307, and was granted a stay on his conviction by the High Court due to his status as an elected Member of Parliament. The crux of the matter lies in the U.T. Administration of Lakshadweep challenging the High Court’s decision to grant a stay on Faizal’s conviction. This decision was based on Faizal’s elected status as a Member of Parliament. The appeal highlights the legal complexities surrounding the suspension of the conviction and seeks a review of the High Court’s order.
Legal Provisions
This case involves Sections 143, 147, 148, 427, 448, 422, 324, 342, 307, and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
Sub-section 3 of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
Issues
Whether the High Court’s consideration of Faizal’s conviction suspension was biased due to his position as an elected Member of Parliament. Whether the High Court properly weighed the serious nature of the charges against Faizal when granting the stay. Interpretation and application of Sub-section 3 of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, regarding the disqualification of a person convicted for more than two years.
Courts Analysis and Decision
The Union Territory Administration contended that the High Court erred in its prioritization of Faizal’s parliamentary status over the gravity of his convictions. Challenging the High Court’s consideration of potential vacancies and election expenses, the Supreme Court underscored the automatic disqualification outlined in Sub-section 3 of Section 8. The Court set aside the High Court’s order, emphasizing the inadequacy of its exclusive focus on election expenses and urging a comprehensive analysis in line with relevant legal precedents. In its decision, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for reconsideration, directing the High Court to undertake a thorough examination. Despite the remand, an interim arrangement was instituted, granting Faizal the benefit of the stay until the High Court’s reconsideration within a stipulated six-week period. Importantly, the Supreme Court left all contentions between the involved parties open for reevaluation by the High Court, ensuring a comprehensive and impartial review of the case
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Written by- Komal Goswami
Click here to read the judgement
