TITLE: AFJAL ANSARI V. STATE OF UP
CITATION: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3838 OF 2023 (ARISING OUT OF SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL (CRL.) NO. 11129 OF 2023)
DECIDED ON: 14 DECEMBER 2023
CORAM: JUSTICE SURYA KANT, JUSTICE DIPANKAR DATTA, JUSTICE UJJAL BHUYAN
Justice Surya Kant, Justice Dipankar Datta, Justice Ujjal Bhuyan states that “it is the bounden duty of this Court to uphold the rule of law which entails equality before the law and equal subjection of all classes to the ordinary law of the land. No court, much less this Court, should feel chained by misplaced sympathy towards assumed or imagined ramifications on the constituency of the parliamentarian/legislator who has been convicted”.
Brief Facts:
Afjal Ansari, a sitting Member of Parliament from Uttar Pradesh, filed Criminal Appeal No. 3838 of 2023 challenging the High Court’s partial approval of his application for a stay on sentence and conviction under the UP Gangster Act. The conviction posed a substantial threat to Ansari’s political career and his right to represent his constituency. The High Court’s decision had disqualified Ansari partially, raising concerns about the potential irreparable damage to his political standing.
Court’s Observation and Analysis:
The Supreme Court delved into an intricate analysis of the case, primarily focusing on the application of Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). This examination involved a thorough consideration of several factors, including the unique circumstances surrounding the case, the absence of conclusive evidence, Ansari’s previous acquittal, and the foreseeable irreparable consequences of upholding the conviction.
The Court, recognizing the urgency inherent in the matter, leaned towards a nuanced approach in favor of partially staying the conviction. This decision was rooted in the Court’s concern for preventing irreversible damage to Ansari’s political career, acknowledging the potential impact on his constitutional right to represent his constituency.
In emphasizing the significance of Section 389(1) of the CrPC, the Court underscored its role in drawing attention to the possible repercussions when appealing a conviction. The provision grants the Court the authority to suspend an order of conviction, subject to evaluating the specific circumstances and imposing necessary conditions.
The constitutional and statutory framework, notably Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, played a pivotal role in shaping the Court’s perspective. The Court recognized the wide-ranging consequences of Section 8(3), clarifying that a stay of conviction would suspend disqualification, preventing undue prejudice. This acknowledgment was crucial in understanding the impact on Ansari’s public life and the electorate’s rights.
Despite differing opinions, the Court’s decision to dismiss the appeal underscored its commitment to upholding the rule of law and ensuring legal accountability. The lack of exceptional circumstances and inadequate pleadings were considered valid grounds for the dismissal, establishing a precedent that prioritizes consistency in the application of the law and maintains the integrity of elected officials. The decision reflects the Court’s careful balance between individual rights and the broader societal and democratic interests at stake.
“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
