Lily Thomas vs Union of India
Citation: Lily Thomas vs Union of India & Ors., (2000) 6 SCC 224
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: 02
(R.P. Sethi, S. Saghir Ahmad)
Facts:
Smt. Sushmita Ghosh filed a writ petition in 1992 seeking to prevent her husband, Shri G.C. Ghosh (later Mohd. Karim Ghazi), from remarrying after his alleged conversion to Islam solely to bypass Hindu marriage laws prohibiting bigamy. Married under Hindu rites in 1984, Sushmita opposed her husband's insistence on divorce or accepting his second wife. The court issued notices, stating any second marriage during the case would be void if found illegal. Evidence later revealed that Ghosh remarried Vanita Gupta, a Hindu, and had a child, contradicting his claimed religious conversion. The case raised concerns about feigned religious conversions for bigamy. Before this judgment, Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 allowed sitting Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) to continue holding office even after being convicted of certain criminal offenses, provided they filed an appeal within three months of the conviction. This provision was widely criticized for enabling convicted representatives to remain in power. Lily Thomas, a senior advocate, filed a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, arguing that it violated the principles of equality and the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Relevant articles and sections:
Section 8(4): The provision that delayed the disqualification of a convicted legislator by three months. It was later stuck down in the Lily Thomas Case.
Issues:
Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act: It allowed the legislators to continue in office even after being convicted.
Article 14, 102 (1)(e) and 191(1)(e)
Judgement:
The Supreme Court bench comprising Justice A.K. Patnaik and Justice S.J. Mukhopadhyay delivered the judgment on July 10, 2013. The Court declared Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, unconstitutional and struck it down. The Court held that Section 8(4) created a distinction between ordinary citizens and elected representatives. While ordinary citizens were disqualified immediately upon conviction, legislators could continue in office. This violated Article 14 of the Constitution. Legislators, being public servants, must not enjoy special privileges when it comes to disqualification arising from criminal convictions.
Conclusion:
The judgment was hailed as a significant step toward cleansing Indian politics and upholding the integrity of democratic institutions. While some politicians criticized the judgment, civil society and the general public widely welcomed it for ensuring accountability in governance. The ruling highlighted the urgent need for electoral reforms and stricter regulations to prevent criminalization of politics. decision in Lily Thomas v. Union of India remains a pivotal moment in Indian constitutional law. It reinforces the principles of transparency, accountability, and equality, serving as a reminder that no individual is above the law, especially those entrusted with public office.
-NAINA RANA
HPNLU
Commentaires