Convicted and sentenced to five years in jail, RJD leader lalu Prasad faces a bleak political future. He will remain disqualified from contesting elections even if he is granted remission of sentence or a stay on sentence.
Going by the present position in law, lalu stands disqualified for a term of six years on his release from jail. This position is stated in Section 8(3) of the Representation of Peoples Act. Supreme Court (SC) judgements are clear on the point that if the convict secures a remission or stay on sentence during the pendency of his appeal, the disqualification will not cease. lalu’s only hope could be to secure a stay on conviction and getting acquitted.
According to sources in the Election Commission, the law relating to Section 8(3) would cease to operate if a stay on conviction is granted. But here lalu faces another legal hurdle. Having been convicted of a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, a 2001 decision of the apex court has laid down that the order of conviction cannot be suspended in cases of corruption offences. This adds to lalu’s woes.
In KC Sareen v CBI [2001] 6SCC 584, the Court set a precedent by ordering: “When conviction is on a corruption charge against a public servant, the appellate court or revisional court should not suspend the order of conviction during the pendency of the appeal even if the sentence of imprisonment is suspended.”
It would be interesting to see what legal steps lalu would resort to considering the fact that the judgement on four other fodder scam cases against him are pending decision. Under Section 8(3) of RP Act, the disqualification kicks in on the release of the convicted
MP or MlA from jail.
The law assumes that the convicted legislator would undergo his full term, in the case of lalu, this being five years. If a similar sentence is passed in other cases pending against him, similar disqualification would set in after those periods of sentences get over, which practically may sound a death knell for the RJD leader’s political career.
The rustic politician, who made a last-ditch effort in SC to accuse the trial judge of bias and defer judgement against him, may still be considering options to seek an early revival.
One option is to secure a stay on his sentence. A Constitution Bench decision in K Prabhakran v P Jayarajan decided on January 11, 2005 lays down the law in this regard. The majority view (4:1) held that any order suspending sentence will not have the effect of “wiping out disqualification” from a back date. The court argued that by such an order, “what is suspended is not the conviction or sentence, it is only the execution of the sentence or order which is suspended…and not obliterated.”
Another option could be if lalu was to secure a remission under the executive power of the State Government available under Section 435 of CrPC or even the powers under the Constitution available to the Governor and the President to grant pardon or remission. But even this field is ruled by a Constitution Bench decision in Sarat Chandra Rabha case (1960) which held, “In law, the order of remission merely means that the rest of the sentence need not be undergone, leaving the order of conviction by the court and the sentence passed by it untouched.”