DISQUALIFICATION AND DEFAMATION OF MPS

 

DISQUALIFICATION AND DEFAMATION OF MPS   I     RACE IAS : Best IAS Coaching in Lucknow I  Current Affairs

 

Main Examination: General Studies-2

(Issues and Challenges related to Indian Constitution and Administration)

Context:

  • Recently, the sessions court in Surat sentenced the former Congress president to two years in jail in a defamation case over the "Modinickname".
  • Taking cognizance of the court's decision, the Lok Sabha Secretariat has disqualified the Congress MP (former Speaker) from holding office under Article 102(1) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Key points related to the issue:

What is Defamation?

  • Publishing any statement in relation to a person “in words, writing, in pictures or by significant signs”, which causes hatred, ridicule, humiliation of that person in the minds of other people andIf his respect  is harmed, then it is called defamation.
  • Such derogatory words and speech are used in defamation, by which words and speech generate hatred or insult in the society towards a particular person and hurt his dignity.
  • Defamation in India can be both a civil wrong and a criminal act and the difference lies in the objectives they serve.
  • Under civil wrongs, reparation is made by way of compensation and an attempt is made to rectify the act, whereas in criminal cases of defamation, the offender is punished for anymisdeed.

Major provisions relating to Defamation:

  • Section 500 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) provides for simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both, for defamation.
  • As per section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, defamation can be sued on the following grounds;
  • Whoever, by words spoken or intended to be read or by signs or by sight, knowing that such imputation is likely to damage the reputation of that person, does such act, shall, except in exceptional cases, be punished as a result by that person will be called defamation.
  • However, according to section 499, if the imputation of truth is made or published for public welfare, then it will not be considered defamation.

Previous judgments relating to Defamation:

  • Mahendra Ram VanamHarnandan Prasad (1958): A letter written in Urdu was sent to the plaintiff. So he needed someone else to read it. In this context it was held that since the defendant knew that the plaintiff did not know Urdu and would require assistance, the act of the defendant amounted to defamation.
  • Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy (2006): The Delhi High Court held Dr. Swamy guilty of defaming Ram Jethmalani by saying that he had received money from a banned organization to save the then Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu from Rajiv Gandhi's assassination case did.
  • Shreya Singhal Vs Union of India (2015): This is a landmark judgment regarding internet defamation. It inserted the unconstitutional Section 66A of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which punishes sending objectionable messages through communication services.

Constitutional Provisions related to Disqualification of MPs:

  • The provisions relating to the disqualification of MPs are described in three separate laws:

First law

  • The provisions relating to disqualification of a Member of Parliament and a Member of Legislative Assembly are mentioned in Articles 102(1) and 191(1).
  • The disqualification of an MP and MLA is also determined on the basis of three conditions; As-
  • Holding office of profit
  • Being of unsound mind or insolvent,
  • Absence of valid citizenship.

Second law

  • Certain provisions relating to disqualification are mentioned in the Tenth Schedule of the Constitution, including the provision for disqualification of MPs and MLAs on the ground of defection.

Third law

  • Certain provisions regarding disqualification are mentioned in the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
  • This law provides for disqualification for punishment in criminal cases.
  • Representation of the People Act, 1951
  • Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 debars convicted persons from contesting elections. But such persons who are only under trial are free to contest elections, no matter how serious the charges against them .
  • According to the provisions of section 8(1) and (2) of the Representation of the People Act, if a member (MP or MLA) commits untouchability, murder, rape, violation of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, creating enmity on grounds of religion, language or region, Indulges in offenses such as insulting the Constitution of India, importing or exporting prohibited items, indulging in terrorist activities, then he will be disqualified under this section and will be disqualified for a period of 6 years.
  • As per the provisions of section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, if a member is convicted of any offense other than the above offenses and sentenced to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, he will be considered disqualified from the date of conviction and such person will be considered disqualified to contest elections for 6 years after the date of expiry of sentence.
  • Section 9 deals with disqualification for dismissal for corruption or disloyalty.
  • Section 10 deals with disqualification for failure to file accounts of election expenses.
  • Section 11 deals with disqualification for corrupt practice.

Amendment in the Representation of the People Act

  • Under the Representation of the People Act, section 8(4) states that disqualification takes effect only "after the lapse of three months" from the date of conviction. Within that period, MPs and MLAs could file an appeal against the sentence before the High Court.
  • However, in 2013, in the landmark judgment 'Lilly Thomas vs Union of India', the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RPA as unconstitutional.
  • The Supreme Court in 2013, in Lily Thomas vs Union of India, held that any Member of Parliament, Member of Legislative Assembly or Member of Legislative Council who is convicted of an offense and sentenced to a minimum of two years imprisonment, If he loses the membership of the House with immediate effect.
  • In a 2018 judgment in 'LokPrahari Vs Union of India', the Supreme Court clarified that disqualification "shall not apply from the date of stay of conviction by the appellate court".

Conclusion:

  • The provision of defamation law was made by the framers of the constitution to maintain the honor and dignity of the people in the country and not to defame any person with malicious intent and to serve political interests.
  • As an exception, the law of defamation also places restrictions on people's right to freedom of expression. That's why the court should give decision under this law only in special circumstances.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mains Exam Question:

Discuss the main provisions related to the disqualification of MPs anddefamation law in India.