Kapil Sibal, who was the law minister when the UPA regime proposed an ordinance to stop instant disqualification of convicted legislators, has said that the manner in which many MPs and MLAs are being disqualified points to the fact that there was a merit in the intent of the ordinance.

Incidentally, the 2013 ordinance, promulgated by the Manmohan Singh Cabinet, was withdrawn after the then Congress VP Rahul Gandhi publicly termed it “complete nonsense” and asserted that “it should be torn up and thrown away”.

When ET contacted Sibal on Friday, he said: “What is happening these days with regard to disqualification of MPs and MLAs is a matter of concern. BJP and its governments are making use of courts to demand conviction of their political opponents on the basis of many relatively trivial cases. And a mere two years’ conviction then becomes ground for instant disqualification of legislators. The intent of the ordinance that the UPA government had brought was to seek legal remedies against such instant disqualifications of MPs, MLAs and MLCs. The recent disqualifications show there was merit in the intent of the ordinance.”

The 2013 ordinance had provisions for convicted legislators to retain their seats (without voting right and salary) if their appeal against conviction is admitted within 90 days, besides if their conviction is stayed subsequently.

Sibal said the threshold for disqualification shouldn’t be a minimum of two-year sentence as it is now but a minimum of seven years’ jail.

“I think a legislator should be disqualified if he/she is convicted for a criminal case with above seven years’ sentence because a sentence of above seven years’ is what is generally given in cases of serious criminal offences including in murder.”

Ashwani Kumar seeks review
Ashwani Kumar, who also had a stint as law minister in the UPA regime, said the time was ripe to review the law as proposed in the UPA ordinance. “A spate of disqualifications has given reason to consider a review of the existing law to provide reasonable opportunity to the member concerned to question the conviction without incurring disqualification,” he said, adding: “The ordinance sought to be introduced by the UPA government was intended to introduce a provision for appeal to address the harsh operation of the law. It is well established that oppressive and disproportionate punishment is counterproductive and does not serve the cause of justice.”