The genie of voting for notes has come out again. Its discussion has intensified. The Supreme Court has constituted a bench of seven judges to review its own 25-year-old decision of five judges. It is expected that Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, who is doing something new in public interest every day, is going to do something different in this matter.
In the year 1998, the Supreme Court had given its verdict in the PV Narasimha Rao case with a majority of 3/2, under the guise of which a large number of MPs and MLAs have been saved from going to jail. Whereas a large number of cases have come to light against him. In a similar case, when Sita Soren, daughter-in-law of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha leader Shibu Soren, was accused, she approached the Supreme Court and sought relief in the light of the Supreme Court's 1998 verdict.
During the hearing of this issue, the Chief Justice handed over the entire matter to a bench of seven judges. The newly constituted bench has been given the responsibility to decide whether the MPs and MLAs should get that protection even after the vote in exchange of notes? It will be interesting to see what verdict the Supreme Court gives in this matter?
What was the whole matter and the law giving relief to the MPs?
To save the minority government of PV Narasimha Rao, the MPs of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha and Janata Dal were accused of taking money and voting to save the Rao government. The government was saved but amid the uproar the matter reached the CBI for investigation.
The agency's investigation confirmed that all the MPs except Ajit had voted in the House in exchange for currency notes. Ajit did not vote. The matter reached the Supreme Court. In the arguments given by the lawyers in front of five judges in the Supreme Court, they cited Article 105 of the Constitution which gives relief to the MPs.
Article 194 gives similar relief in the context of MLAs. In this way, in the case of vote in lieu of notes, the decision given by a majority of 3/2 said that the MPs who took bribe and voted in the House will be free from criminal charges. Because the alleged bribe was in the context of parliamentary vote.
The decision may be shocking
Senior Supreme Court advocate Ashwini Kumar Dubey says that after 25 years, handing over a decision of five judges to a bench of seven judges for review is unique in many cases. When the bench of seven judges hears this debate, it will be interesting to hear and the decision may be even more shocking. Because legally there are only two possibilities in this case. One bench should go with the bench of five judges. Two-Give an order against that decision.
If the first order comes, then there will be no shocking thing, but if the decision is reversed then a large number of MPs and MLAs will be in trouble, who till now, despite having complaints and proof, have been booked under Article 105 (2), Article 194 (2) and They have been escaping by taking recourse to the decision of the Supreme Court in 1998.
The court has sufficient data of various cases and investigations registered against MPs and MLAs, which has been made available from time to time by the government machinery like ED, CBI. Cases against more than nine hundred MPs and MLAs are stuck in the courts of the country for the last several years. CBI is also investigating many cases.
If a seven-judge bench overturns the old decision of a five-judge bench, it will prove to be a historic decision. Even if the central government overturns that decision through law, a precedent will definitely be set. This is also possible because the current central government has also supported the decision of the Supreme Court in 1998.
No comments:
Post a Comment