Listen to this articlePradeep Kumar Sonthalia v. Dhiraj Prasad Sahu.
Civil Appeal No. 611 of 2020 decided on 18.12.2020
Bench: S.A. Bobde, CJI, A.S. Bopanna, V. Ramasubramanian, JJ.
Facts:
The case is set during the period of biennial elections
held for two seats to the Rajya Sabha from the State of Jharkhand.
The time for voting was between 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM
wherein an elected member of the Assembly, Amit Kumar Mahto (Jharkhand Mukti
Morcha) cast his vote at 9.15 AM Hours. Only hours later, Amit was convicted by
a Sessions Court at Ranchi, for offences punishable under Sections 147,
323/149, 341/149, 353/149, 427/149 and 506/149 IPC awarding imprisonment of 2
years. The conviction and sentence were handed over at 2.30 PM.
A letter of objection was lodged on the same day to the
Returning Officer requesting to declare the vote cast by Amit invalid, as he
has been convicted and sentence imposed in the afternoon itself. Despite the
objection, on the next day, the Returning Officer declared the Samir Uraon and
Dhiraj Prasad Sahu as duly elected.
As a consequence, on of the losing candidate, Sonthalia,
approached the Jharkhand High Court with an election petition to set aside the
election of Dheeraj Prasad Sahu on the ground that the vote cast by Amit was
void on account of his conviction.
The Jharkhand High Court dismissed the petition with the
observation that the election to the Council of States is based on a system of
proportional representation through a single transferable vote. It held that
the process is highly complex and technical. It held that it is not possible to
find out if the election petitioner could have won the election if that one
vote had been rejected. However, for the issue of the disqualification, the
Court held that the disqualification came into effect immediately from the date
of his conviction and sentence of two years and, therefore, the vote of Amit
should not have been taken into consideration for the final counting.
Both the losing candidates, Sonthalia and Dhiraj Prasad
Sahu, approached the Supreme Court in an appeal for the dismissal of the
election petition by the Jharkhand High Court and its observation on the
findings of the law respectively.
Issue:
Whether the vote cast by Amit Kumar Mahto at 9.15 AM on March 23, 2018, should be
invalidated for the reason of the disqualification suffered by him under
Article 191(1)(e) of the Constitution of India read with Section 8(3) of
the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act), by virtue of his conviction
and sentence by the Sessions Court in a criminal case on the very same date.
Held:
The Court
held that the vote cast by Amit Mahto was valid and if the vote cast by Amit Mahto
was invalidated, it would imply that the resulting disqualification due to the
conviction would go before the conviction, resulting in an absurd conclusion.
The disqualification arising under Section 8(3) of the Act, is the consequence
of the conviction and sentence imposed by the Criminal Court. In other words,
the conviction is the cause and disqualification is the consequence. A
consequence can never precede the cause. If the disqualification is upheld, the
consequence will be deemed to have occurred even before the cause surfaced. It
would imply that the Returning Officer should have had the foresight of the
outcome of the criminal case, which was to be concluded in the afternoon, in
the morning itself when Amit cast his vote. The Court held that if such a power
is vested in the Election Commission, it will create endless confusion and
needless chaos.
An
interpretation in favour of the appellant would defeat the fundamental
principle of criminal jurisprudence and a substantive right that presumes
innocence until proven guilty. The Court also placed reliance on the de facto doctrine
which states that the act of an officer has to be assumed to be in the interest
of the public and not for their benefit. Thus it is regarded as valid and
binding as if they were the acts of the officers de jure. The Court
relied on the case of Gokaraju
Rangaraju v. State of Andhra
Pradesh[(1981) 3 SCC 132], where it was held that the de facto
doctrine is founded on good sense, sound policy and practical expedience and
that it is aimed at the prevention of public and private mischief and the
protection of public and personal interest.
Article 191(1) of the Indian Constitution deals with five
different grounds of disqualification. The Court noted that the interpretation
to be given to the expression “the date” appearing in Section 8(3) of the
Representation of the People Act, 1951 will have a bearing upon the
interpretation to be given to the date of happening of any one of the above
events of disqualification. The appellant argued that the expression “the date”
would mean the whole of the day as was held in a 1968 judgement of Pashupati
Nath Singh v. Harihar Prasad Singh[AIR 1968 SC 1064].
The Court rejected the appellant’s interpretation of the
expression “the date” with the observation that though it is easier to
interpret with reference to Article 191(1)(e), it cannot be similarly tested
against each of the sub-clauses of Article 191(1)
Relevant
Provision of Law
191.
Disqualifications for membership
(1) A
person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of
the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State
(a) if he
holds any office of profit under the Government of India or the Government of
any State specified in the First Schedule, other than an office declared by the
Legislature of the State by law not to disqualify its holder;
(b) if he
is of unsound mind and stands so declared by a competent court;
(c) if he
is an undischarged insolvent;
(d) if he
is not a citizen of India, or has voluntarily acquired the citizenship of a
foreign State, or is under any acknowledgement of allegiance or adherence to a
foreign State;
(e) if he
is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament Explanation For the
purposes of this clause, a person shall not be deemed to hold any office of
profit under the Government of India or the Government of any State specified
in the First Schedule by reason only that he is a Minister either for the Union
or such State
Section 8(3)
(3) A
person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than
two years other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section
(2) shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue
to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.