New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed doubt over the Kerala High Court’s decision to stay the conviction of Lakshadweep MP Mohd Faizal PP and wondered what was so extraordinary in his case that the court had to intervene in this way.
The bench comprising Justice KM Joseph and Justice BV Nagarathana also orally observed that the courts cannot follow different rules for MPs and non-MPs/MLAs on the issue of stay of conviction. “It (stay) cannot be run-of-the-mill, it has to be in exceptional circumstances,” the court said.
The court’s remarks came when it was hearing an appeal by the Lakshadweep administration against the Kerala High Court order of January 25, which had stayed the conviction and sentence of 4 persons, including NCP member Mohd Faizal, in an attempt to murder case .
Faizal and 3 others were earlier declared guilty of attempted murder of Padnath Saleh, former Union minister and son-in-law of Congress leader PM Sayeed.
On January 11, the Kavaratti sessions court sentenced all four to 4 to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment. A day later, the convicts filed an appeal before the Kerala High Court and applied for bail during the pendency of the appeal.
Faisal, disqualified as Lok Sabha MP in January, allowed to stay conviction membership reinstated, His disqualification was revoked just ahead of the Supreme Court hearing on Wednesday.
Read also: In Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification, Modi-Shah set electoral trap for Congress
Why did SC object
The Supreme Court bench considered one of the grounds on which the HC had stayed the conviction. The High Court had said that Faizal’s conviction would lead to his disqualification as an MP, which in turn would put a burden on the exchequer.
Additional Solicitor General KM Natarajan said, “Prima facie, we are of the view that this (observation) should have been avoided.”
The law officer insisted that stay of sentence is not a rule but an exception.
Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for Faizal, defended the HC order and pointed out that disqualification is one of the 5 grounds given to stay the conviction. He said that 4 others were in reference to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court through earlier judgments.
Singhvi said a court can stay a conviction when it is satisfied that failure to do so would have irreversible consequences. “The court is duty-bound to look into all aspects. The High Court considered all the 4 issues, there is an additional point of consideration regarding disqualification,” said the senior counsel.
He touched on the merits of the case and said that, even as per the findings of the trial court, the alleged injury was not serious as it was not caused by a sharp weapon or an iron rod, as alleged in the FIR. Singhvi claimed that there are also statements of witnesses to this effect.
But the Supreme Court bench took a different view on the nature of the injury suffered by the victim and felt that the High Court was not correct in holding that the victim had suffered simple injury.
“If the man was not taken to the hospital, he could have died. He was airlifted in a helicopter and kept in the ICU for close to 2 weeks,” Justice Joseph said.
Singhvi intervened saying that the doctor’s report prepared after the victim was admitted to the hospital stated that she was conscious. Therefore, the High Court was prima facie correct in finding that the victim had sustained simple injury.
However, Justice Nagarathana said that if the court is of the prima facie opinion that the case is one of acquittal, then the conviction can be stayed. He asked Singhvi about the irreversible consequences the HC contemplated if the sentence was not stayed, adding that the rule of stay should be the same for MPs/MLAs and other citizens.
Singhvi said that disqualification is not only for one MP but also for others. He cited the example of a government servant who could face disqualification from work in case of conviction. He said, “Disqualification can happen in many situations, not just MP or MLA.”
The bench finally asked Natarajan to place before the court the statements of all relevant witnesses so that it could peruse them. Giving them 10 days time to do so, the court has fixed the date of April 24 for the re-hearing of the case.
(Editing by Sunanda Ranjan)
Read also: Disqualification of Rahul Gandhi: What are the grounds for expelling MPs and what does the law say