In a notable decision, the Indore bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court has rejected an application seeking the suspension of conviction filed by an aspiring election candidate for the Ratlam (Urban) constituency. The court emphasized that the power to suspend a conviction can only be invoked under “exceptional circumstances.”
The appellant, who identifies as an active member of the Youth Congress, was unable to prove that maintaining his conviction would result in irreparable harm and injustice. The court stated,
” Right to contest the election is not a fundamental right. It is a statutory right. From the facts of the case, it is apparent that the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 307 of IPC for three counts and his presence has been established at the spot and a knife has also been recovered from him. Apart from that, he is a habitual offender having eight criminal cases,”
as observed by Justice Vijay Kumar Shukla in the final order.
The court also referenced decisions from Sanjay Dutt v. State of Maharashtra (2009) and Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab & Anr. (2007), highlighting two key observations:
i) A stay of conviction can only be granted if the court is made aware of the specific consequences resulting from the conviction.
ii) If the offence is of a grave nature, the conviction cannot be suspended.
The court noted that the decisions in Rahul Gandhi v. Purnesh Iswarbhai Modi & Anr. 2023 and Mohammed Faizal v. UT Administration of Lakshadweep & Ors would not be applicable to the current case’s factual matrix. In both these cases, the petitioners faced disqualification due to convictions under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 while they were sitting members of parliament.
However, in the present scenario, the appellant is merely being considered as a potential candidate for his party in the upcoming Assembly Elections. The court observed that the appellant failed to present any exceptional circumstances warranting a stay on his conviction.
The court further elaborated,
” In the case of Navjot Singh Sidhu (supra), it was held that the suspension of conviction can be resorted to a rare case depending on the said fact of the case. In the present case, upon perusal of the application, it is evident that except one letter of President of District Congress Committee, whereby the name of the appellant has also been included along with other aspirants for contesting the assembly election, there is no other material for making the present case as exceptional case, which would lead to injustice or irreversible consequences.”
The appellant’s counsel argued that since the appellant’s sentence had already been suspended, he would be ineligible to contest the election due to the provisions of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 unless the conviction order is stayed. Contrarily, the respondent state highlighted that the appellant had been convicted under multiple sections, including Sections 148, 307 r/w 149 of IPC and 25(1b) (a) and 27 of the Arms Act for three counts, portraying him as a ‘hardened criminal’ with eight criminal cases against him.