To cut the growing dominance of criminals in politics and Government administration, the Supreme Court has passed an order to disqualify the convicted MPs and MLAs from taking part in law making and influencing the administrative workings, and thus tried to curb the fast spreading corruption in Indian politics.
In usual course of time lot of criminal cases comes to the knowledge of public domain. The state is duty bound to take cognisance of those and act fast on that. But in practise the avoids in most cases.
First the ruling government reluctantly agrees to investigate those, then delays it by all the means like, a) interfering in investigation (our previous law minister checked the confidential reports to be submitted by CBI to Supreme Court ; and then edited that in collusion with the accused itself, that is our pious PMO in 2G and Coalgate scams) ,
b) subsequently they try to bloke the investigation by even removing the important files from the records as in the case of coal allocation by the coal ministry, all this acts are done to protect the crime doer.
But even when the case is finalised in lower or high courts after passing of one to fifteen year's time and finally the crime is proved and the criminal is convicted, they still manage to evade the judgement by appealing in higher Supreme Court, while enjoying the privilege of being an elected representative of people.
Supreme Court tried to remove this anomaly that, why a MLA or MP , even after convicted for a crime by nation's judiciary should hold any post, by just appealing to higher court ?
HONEST INDIA : argues why any case should be filed in lower courts if we are not supposed to accept the verdict ? The Constitution gives us right to appeal, it implies that till the higher court negates the verdict of lower court you are supposed to accept that status morally and should behave and act like that.
If not why in certain cases passports are seized or compulsory reporting to police authority is ordered ? An elected representative should also behave like an "idol" face of a law abiding person.
The Supreme Court's above order was cancelled today when the (the Law Avoiding or Evading) Congress government issued an ordinance to undo the Supreme Court's order disqualifying convicted MPs and MLAs, a move that comes just ahead of a verdict on key UPA ally Lalu Yadav in the multi crore fodder scam of nineties.
The Supreme Court had, in its landmark order in July, had struck down a provision in the Representation of the People's Act (RPA) that protects convicted MPs and MLAs from disqualification even if they appeal to a higher court. This left RJD chief Lalu Yadav facing the prospect of losing his membership if convicted in the fodder scam case on September 30. Congress's Rajya Sabha member Rashid Masood was also facing disqualification after being convicted in a corruption case.
The Centre had argued that protecting convicted MPs and MLAs from disqualification during pendency of appeal is necessary "to protect the House and to ensure that governance is not adversely impacted".
HONEST INDIA agrees with the argument that if Congress does not protect a convicted MLA or MP, the governance of this corrupt Congress will be seriously hampered and they are justified in passing this ordinance to protect the criminals, convicted by Court of Justice in India.