Allowing a convicted parliamentarian to attend proceedings derogatory to dignity of Parliament , SC judge on Afzal Ansari’s conviction

A bench comprising justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, partially allowed Ansari’s appeal. Justices Kant and Bhuyan ruled in favour of Ansari’s plea, however, Justice Datta said that Ansari’s appeal should not succeed. The apex court set a deadline of June 30, 2024, for the Allahabad High Court to decide on his plea against the conviction, reports Sumit Saxena.

New Delhi:Supreme Court Judge Justice Dipankar Datta on Thursday said that no court should feel chained by misplaced sympathy towards assumed ramifications on the constituency of the parliamentarian/legislator, who has been convicted while disagreeing with a majority judgment, which partially allowed the appeal by Bahujan Samaj Party parliamentarian Afzal Ansari against his conviction in a 2007 Gangster Act case. Justice Datta emphasised allowing a convicted parliamentarian to attend parliamentary proceedings could not only be derogatory to the dignity of Parliament, but also derogatory to the good sense and wisdom of the people, who elected such parliamentarian

A bench comprising justices Surya Kant, Dipankar Datta and Ujjal Bhuyan, partially allowed Ansari’s appeal. Justices Kant and Bhuyan ruled in favour of Ansari’s plea, however, Justice Datta said that Ansari’s appeal should not succeed. The apex court set a deadline of June 30, 2024, for the Allahabad High Court to decide on his plea against the conviction.

Justice Datta, in his 56-page judgment, said: “As the court of last resort, 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”.

Justice Datta said, “Allowing a convicted parliamentarian to attend parliamentary proceedings could not only be derogatory to the dignity of Parliament but also derogatory to the good sense and wisdom of the people, who elected such parliamentarian”. He said it would not be out of place to quote Dwight D. Eisenhower, the 34th US President, perhaps in times when democracy faced its toughest test. He said: “The clearest way to show what the rule of law means to us in everyday life is to recall what has happened when there is no rule of law”.

Justice Datta said the adoption of the course charted by senior advocate AM Singhvi, who represented Afzal, that a mere disqualification (without anything more being on record) should be considered as amounting to “irreversible consequences”, would inevitably result in this court sailing in an unnavigable sea of generalisation.

Justice Datta emphasised that while recognising the importance of the electorate's representation, it is necessary to maintain a balance between this right and the enforcement of legal accountability within the democratic framework.

He noted that indeed, the courts have acknowledged that legislators bear a special duty towards their constituents, and failure to secure a stay of conviction may lead to the loss of the opportunity to contest elections. “In isolation, this consideration might serve as a compelling reason to grant a stay of conviction. However, when a parliamentarian/legislator seeks a stay of conviction, he shoulders an additional responsibility of demonstrating how his constituents are likely to endure adverse consequences if the conviction is not stayed”, he said.

Justice Datta stressed that a parliamentarian/legislator cannot be allowed to obtain a ‘double advantage’ where he implores the court for a stay of conviction being a parliamentarian/legislator while simultaneously failing to provide full disclosure of consequences regardless of what the reasons are, whether due to inadvertence, negligence, or mistake. “Failing to do the same, the law should be allowed to take its own course”, he said.

Singhvi had argued that his client, being an elected member of the Lok Sabha, stands on the brink of losing the right to represent his constituency in the near future apart from potentially silencing the voice of the electorate that had previously elected him. Justice Datta said heavy reliance was placed by Singhvi on the decision in Rahul Gandhi’s case to support the claim of the appellant for staying his conviction, which appears to be misplaced.

Justice Datta said Afzal was convicted under Section 3(1) of the Gangsters Act and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, and Section 3(1) thereof prescribes a maximum punishment of ten years and a statutory minimum of two years. He said in Rahul Gandhi’s case, while staying the conviction, it was specifically noted by this court that the maximum sentence of imprisonment for two years was imposed by the trial court without any accompanying rationale.

“In contrast, in the present case, where the maximum sentence could be 10 years and the appellant was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment, and that, too, in the light of his plea for leniency, the reasoning for granting relief in Rahul Gandhi remains distinguishable and categorically fails to offer any support to the appellant”, said Justice Datta.

Justice Datta said Afzal is an accused in a couple of criminal cases and his conduct is either under investigation or he is standing trial. “Not a single mitigating factor was shown by the appellant that could lend support to his case. In such circumstances, can it be concluded that the appellant's case qualifies as “exceptional”, thus justifying a stay of the conviction?”, he said.

Justice Datta said, “In such a situation, should a convict merely because of his status as a member of the Lok Sabha/Legislative Assembly, particularly when only a few months remain for a new Lok Sabha to be formed, be given special treatment when in ordinary circumstances, such treatment may not be available to the common citizen? The answer to this question, I am inclined to think, is a simple “NO” unless, of course, it is shown that grave injustice and irreversible consequences would follow a refusal by the competent court to stay the conviction”.

In April, a special court in Uttar Pradesh’s Ghazipur convicted Ansari and his brother Mukhtar Ansari, an ex-legislator and awarded a 10-year imprisonment to Mukhtar Ansari. The majority’s judgment said that Ansari can contest the next Lok Sabha elections in 2024 and the outcome of this election will depend on the decision of the High Court in his appeal.

Ansari was disqualified as a member of the Lok Sabha on May 1 after being convicted and sentenced to four years in prison. He is a five-time assembly member and two-time parliamentarian. The Ansari brothers were booked under the Gangster Act in connection with the murder of the BJP legislator Krishnanad Rai in November 2005 and the kidnapping-murder of Varanasi trader Nand Kishore Rungta in 1997. The High Court, in July, declined to suspend Afjal Ansari’s conviction but granted him bail. He appealed against the judgment of the special court, which also fined him Rs 1 lakh.