New Delhi. Supreme Court expressed doubts over Kerala High Court’s reasons for suspending NCP MP Mohammad Faizal’s conviction in an attempt to murder case and considered remitting it to the High Court to be considered afresh. The court’s Division Bench, comprising Justices BV Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan, was hearing the petitions challenging the Kerala High Court’s January 25 order suspending Mohd Faizal’s conviction and sentence. The petitions were moved before the Supreme Court by the Union Territory of Lakshadweep’s administration and the victim accusing Faizal of attempting to murder him.
The Kerala High Court’s January 25 order took into account that Faizal’s seat would be vacant and the polls would cost the exchequer as he is an elected representative while granting him a stay on conviction. However, the Supreme Court has raised concerns over the High Court’s rationale for incurring monetary loss while organising the administrative exercise.
“Because there is going to be a disqualification, we are going to suspend his conviction…That cannot be the reason,” Justice Nagarathna said.
The court considered whether the matter should be remitted to the High Court to be reconsidered afresh. The court further considered whether Mohd Faizal could be allowed to attend the Parliament, while the High Court reconsidered his case afresh.
The Lakshadweep administration’s counsel, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, said, “In the fitness of things, it is better that the high court considers all the aspects and the entire issue can be kept open. To be allowed permission to attend the Parliament, the MP can make an application to the high court”. However, the accused NCP MP’s counsel, Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, responded, “When the respondent has succeeded, why should he go back?”
Justice Nagarathna said, “If you are not agreeable to this arrangement, we will hear the matter. A date has to be given.” Thereafter, the counsels argued over the next date of the hearing. The court listed the case for the next hearing on August 22.
Supreme Court Says No Separate Rule for Elected Representatives
On March 29, the Supreme Court remarked that there could not be a separate rule for an elected representative and common people for suspension of conviction and sentence in a criminal case while hearing a plea concerning Mohammad Faizal’s conviction and disqualification from Lok Sabha. The court said, “Unless an appellate court finds that prima facie it’s a case of acquittal, a stay on conviction cannot be given. Just because there is a disqualification, different rules cannot kick in”.
The court made these observations on Kerala High Court’s order which took into account that Faizal’s seat will be vacant and the polls would cost the exchequer as he is an elected representative while granting him a stay on conviction. The court said, “The High Court saying that election expenditure will be increased is totally irrelevant; extraneous; nothing to do with the issue”. Furthermore, it added, “It is only in exceptional cases that a court should stay conviction. This should not be a run-of-the-mill case where you ask and get a stay”.
