Principle Of Decriminalization Of Politics Holds Ground Till Date: Delhi HC Dismisses Madhu Koda’s Plea For Suspension Of Conviction In Coal Scam Case
The Delhi High Court has dismissed Madhu Koda’s application for suspension of conviction in the Coal scam case after observing that the principle of ‘decriminalization of politics’ holds the ground to date.
The former Jharkhand Chief Minister Madhu Koda (petitioner) had filed a second application under Section 389(1) and Section 482 of the CrPC seeking suspension of conviction for offences under Section 120B of the IPC and Sections 13(2), 13(1)(d)(ii) and 13(1)(d)(iii) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PCA). The Court rejected the same after duly considering the petitioner’s ground of contesting in the 6th Jharkhand State Assembly elections to represent the tribal "Ho" community.
A Single Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed, “These pleas of the Applicant must not be construed without a backdrop. The backdrop is again at two distinct levels – Right to represent in a constitutional democracy, and a greater democratic ideal of decriminalisation of Politics. The second ideal has come to be viewed in an alternative light and as a result its effect has been watered down in the recent judgment of Afjal Ansari (Supra) wherein the Majority weighed about the depoliticization of criminality”
Senior Advocate Amit Kumar appeared for the petitioner, while Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema represented the respondent.
The petitioner was convicted in 2017 after he was found guilty in the coal block allocation scam. Consequently, the petitioner was disqualified from contesting elections under Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act, 1951.
The first application for suspension of conviction by the petitioner was dismissed in 2020. The Court while rejecting this application for stay of conviction, observed that “if the wider opinion is that persons charged with crimes ought to be disqualified from contesting elections to public offices, it would not be apposite for this Court to stay the appellant‟s conviction to overcome the disqualification incurred by him.”
In the present application, the petitioner relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Afjal Ansari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, wherein the conviction of the applicant was suspended who was also a sitting member of Parliament at the time of his Conviction and his consequent disqualification, created a situation of vacuum wherein a large number of people were left unrepresented in the Parliament.
However, the High Court clarified that the petitioner in this case was not an elected representative, who incurred disqualification during the tenure of holding Public Office. “The consequence of a sitting member may have irreversible consequences on a Constituency by being left unrepresented, and in such rare occurrence the Court would be right in exercising its power to stay the conviction in view of larger social ramifications for the people of the constituency,” it remarked.
The Court observed that the idea of a “greater democratic ideal of decriminalisation of Politics” was watered down by the judgment of Afjal Ansari (Supra) wherein the Majority weighed the “depoliticization of criminality.”
The Bench noted, “The Applicant has presented this Application citing change in circumstances and in law. However, the consistent position of law has been of decriminalization of politics and this principle continues to hold the ground till date.”
The Court stated that courts need to balance the rights of both the accused, who was convicted and his Appeal against such Conviction was currently pending; and second of the former Member of Parliament who sought to represent his constituency.
Consequently, the Court held, “There is no new grounds shown to consider the present Application under S. 389(1) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 afresh and is held to be not maintainable, in view of the dismissal of similar earlier Application.”
Accordingly, the High Court disposed of the application.
Cause Title: Madhu Koda v. State Thru CBI (Neutral Citation: 2024:DHC:8066)
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate Amit Kumar; Advocates Luv Kumar. Priyanka Parmar and Neeraj Kumar
Respondent: Senior Advocate R.S. Cheema; Advocates Tarannum Cheema, Akshay N, Sadeev Kang and Akash Singh