Express News Service
NEW DELHI: Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal on Tuesday suffered a huge setback as the Supreme Court set aside an order of the Kerala High Court suspending his conviction in an attempt to murder case and asked it to decide on his case afresh within six weeks.
The court said the Kerala HC had failed to consider the true position of law with respect to the manner in which application for stay of conviction must be considered. A trial court had sentenced him to 10 years in jail, which led to his disqualification from the Lok Sabha. But the HC’s stay on his conviction had restored his MP status. The SC said his continuing as MP will not be affected till the HC takes a fresh call.
In its previous order, the HC had cited the prospect of incurring enormous expenses to conduct fresh elections as a ground to stay his conviction. But a bench of justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan faulted the HC’s decision making process. “HC has considered one aspect of the matter, namely he being MP, as any order would result in fresh elections and entail enormous expenses. The said aspect need not have been the only one to be considered by the HC,” the bench said.
NEW DELHI: Lakshadweep MP Mohammed Faizal on Tuesday suffered a huge setback as the Supreme Court set aside an order of the Kerala High Court suspending his conviction in an attempt to murder case and asked it to decide on his case afresh within six weeks.
The court said the Kerala HC had failed to consider the true position of law with respect to the manner in which application for stay of conviction must be considered. A trial court had sentenced him to 10 years in jail, which led to his disqualification from the Lok Sabha. But the HC’s stay on his conviction had restored his MP status. The SC said his continuing as MP will not be affected till the HC takes a fresh call.
In its previous order, the HC had cited the prospect of incurring enormous expenses to conduct fresh elections as a ground to stay his conviction. But a bench of justices B V Nagarathna and Ujjal Bhuyan faulted the HC’s decision making process. “HC has considered one aspect of the matter, namely he being MP, as any order would result in fresh elections and entail enormous expenses. The said aspect need not have been the only one to be considered by the HC,” the bench said.googletag.cmd.push(function() {googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-8052921-2’); });
