‘Lawbreakers cannot be lawmakers’: HC denies stay on ex-MLA Gujjar’s conviction
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asserted that “those who break the law should not make the law,” while refusing to stay former MLA and senior Congress leader Ram Kishan Gujjar’s conviction in an abetment to suicide case. Gujjar sought the stay to contest the forthcoming Assembly elections.
No dearth of law-abiding contestants
There is no dearth of law-abiding citizens to contest the ensuing elections for the legislative Assembly in Haryana. Thus, the present applicant – a convict under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years – would not be an indispensable person for this purpose. Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu
“There is no dearth of law-abiding citizens to contest the ensuing elections for the legislative Assembly in Haryana. Thus, the present applicant – a convict under Section 306 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years – would not be an indispensable person for this purpose,” Justice Mahabir Singh Sindhu stated.
The matter was placed before Justice Sindhu after Gujjar filed a plea for suspension of conviction recorded by the Ambala Additional Sessions Judge in February 2017. The Bench was informed that Gujjar’s appeal against the conviction and sentence was admitted in March 2017.
The sentence of imprisonment and compensation of Rs 3 lakh was stayed on May 10, 2017. However, Rs 2 lakh of the remaining compensation had already been deposited with the trial court. Appearing before Justice Sindhu’s Bench, senior counsel contended that Gujjar intended to contest the Assembly polls on October 5 but was disqualified under the Representation of the People Act following his conviction.
Taking up the matter, Justice Sindhu observed that the applicant sought suspension of his conviction solely to contest the upcoming elections. “There is no quarrel that the right to contest election is neither a fundamental right; nor such a right is available under common law. Rather, it is purely a statutory right conferred under the provisions of the RP Act,” the court noted.
Justice Sindhu added the senior counsel argued Gujjar had a strong case on merit. But it, prima facie, appeared from the cursory examination of the material on record that findings recorded by the trial court were “fairly convincing a preliminary review of the trial court’s findings suggested they were “fairly convincing.”
Dismissing the plea, Justice Sindhu emphasised that deeper analysis or comments on the merits of the pending appeal might prejudice either party. “There is no ground made out, much less to say an exceptional circumstance, warranting suspension/stay of conviction imposed against the applicant; nor is he going to suffer any irreversible loss if his conviction is not suspended/stayed by this court.
Consequently, there is no option except to dismiss the application,” Justice Sindhu stated, clarifying that these observations should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the appeal’s merits.
