Question Description
Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided. The differential treatment of candidates for elections and sitting members was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. In the latter case, the strength of the party in the legislature would change, and could have an adverse impact if a government had a thin majority. It would also trigger a byelection. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the two categories differently.The Court also considered whether in case of a disqualified candidate who is later acquitted, the disqualification would be removed with retrospective effect. It stated that this could not be done as this would require the results of the election to be cancelled. Therefore, the removal of disqualification would be prospective and for future elections. In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court again considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of India). It stated that Article 102 empowers Parliament to make law regarding disqualification of a person “for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament”. It interpreted this phrase to mean that whereas Parliament could specify conditions for disqualification, those conditions would apply equally to candidates and sitting members. Therefore, the exception carved out for sitting members was unconstitutional. The judgment further cited Article 101 that if a Member of Parliament was disqualified under Article 102, “his seat shall thereupon become vacant”. Therefore, the disqualification was automatic and had immediate effect if the conditions of Article 102 were met.So, what happens if the conviction is suspended? Navjot Singh Sidhu was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment when he was an MP. He resigned his seat but wanted to contest the election, and appealed for a stay on his conviction. The Supreme Court stayed his conviction in 2007, which removed the disqualification until the appeal was decided. This decision allowed him to contest the election. This issue was also discussed in the Lily Thomas judgment (2013). The judgment stated that a disqualified person may obtain a stay on his conviction, and cited an earlier 2007 judgment that the disqualification would be removed from the date of the stay order. So what happens now? The Lakshadweep seat was declared vacant but the ECI, after the stay order, announced deferring the byelection.The Lok Sabha has kept the seat vacant and has not yet reinstated the MP. The reason the High Court granted the stay was to avoid an expensive election. The question is whether the removal of disqualification can be back dated as if it never happened and the election avoided. Or whether the disqualification is removed only from the date of the stay order, and, therefore, the vacated seat be filled only through a byelection. This conundrum arises because the Lily Thomas judgment requires the seat to be vacated immediately upon disqualification whereas the Kerala High Court stay tries to ensure that the MP retains the seat until the appeal is decided. The answer will also have implications for similar cases in the future.Q.Which of the provided statements lend support to the central argument presented in the passage?a)The interpretation of Article 102 in the Lily Thomas vs Union of India judgment, which mandates equal treatment of candidates and sitting members for disqualification, might be viewed as excessively rigid since it doesnt allow for any exceptions or considerations in varying circumstances.b)Treating candidates running for elections and sitting members differently in terms of disqualification could be perceived as a violation of the constitutional principle of equality as outlined in Article 14. Both groups are subject to disqualification if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more.c)The disqualification of a convicted candidate or member under Article 102 is instantaneous and obligatory, with an acknowledged exception for sitting members.d)The rationale presented by the Supreme Court in the K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan case, suggesting that disqualifying a sitting member would disproportionately affect a partys legislative strength, could be seen as arbitrary and speculative. This assumption implies that a disqualified members replacement would invariably have a different party affiliation.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? for CLAT 2024 is part of CLAT preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CLAT exam syllabus. Information about Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided. The differential treatment of candidates for elections and sitting members was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. In the latter case, the strength of the party in the legislature would change, and could have an adverse impact if a government had a thin majority. It would also trigger a byelection. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the two categories differently.The Court also considered whether in case of a disqualified candidate who is later acquitted, the disqualification would be removed with retrospective effect. It stated that this could not be done as this would require the results of the election to be cancelled. Therefore, the removal of disqualification would be prospective and for future elections. In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court again considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of India). It stated that Article 102 empowers Parliament to make law regarding disqualification of a person “for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament”. It interpreted this phrase to mean that whereas Parliament could specify conditions for disqualification, those conditions would apply equally to candidates and sitting members. Therefore, the exception carved out for sitting members was unconstitutional. The judgment further cited Article 101 that if a Member of Parliament was disqualified under Article 102, “his seat shall thereupon become vacant”. Therefore, the disqualification was automatic and had immediate effect if the conditions of Article 102 were met.So, what happens if the conviction is suspended? Navjot Singh Sidhu was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment when he was an MP. He resigned his seat but wanted to contest the election, and appealed for a stay on his conviction. The Supreme Court stayed his conviction in 2007, which removed the disqualification until the appeal was decided. This decision allowed him to contest the election. This issue was also discussed in the Lily Thomas judgment (2013). The judgment stated that a disqualified person may obtain a stay on his conviction, and cited an earlier 2007 judgment that the disqualification would be removed from the date of the stay order. So what happens now? The Lakshadweep seat was declared vacant but the ECI, after the stay order, announced deferring the byelection.The Lok Sabha has kept the seat vacant and has not yet reinstated the MP. The reason the High Court granted the stay was to avoid an expensive election. The question is whether the removal of disqualification can be back dated as if it never happened and the election avoided. Or whether the disqualification is removed only from the date of the stay order, and, therefore, the vacated seat be filled only through a byelection. This conundrum arises because the Lily Thomas judgment requires the seat to be vacated immediately upon disqualification whereas the Kerala High Court stay tries to ensure that the MP retains the seat until the appeal is decided. The answer will also have implications for similar cases in the future.Q.Which of the provided statements lend support to the central argument presented in the passage?a)The interpretation of Article 102 in the Lily Thomas vs Union of India judgment, which mandates equal treatment of candidates and sitting members for disqualification, might be viewed as excessively rigid since it doesnt allow for any exceptions or considerations in varying circumstances.b)Treating candidates running for elections and sitting members differently in terms of disqualification could be perceived as a violation of the constitutional principle of equality as outlined in Article 14. Both groups are subject to disqualification if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more.c)The disqualification of a convicted candidate or member under Article 102 is instantaneous and obligatory, with an acknowledged exception for sitting members.d)The rationale presented by the Supreme Court in the K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan case, suggesting that disqualifying a sitting member would disproportionately affect a partys legislative strength, could be seen as arbitrary and speculative. This assumption implies that a disqualified members replacement would invariably have a different party affiliation.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CLAT 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided. The differential treatment of candidates for elections and sitting members was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. In the latter case, the strength of the party in the legislature would change, and could have an adverse impact if a government had a thin majority. It would also trigger a byelection. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the two categories differently.The Court also considered whether in case of a disqualified candidate who is later acquitted, the disqualification would be removed with retrospective effect. It stated that this could not be done as this would require the results of the election to be cancelled. Therefore, the removal of disqualification would be prospective and for future elections. In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court again considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of India). It stated that Article 102 empowers Parliament to make law regarding disqualification of a person “for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament”. It interpreted this phrase to mean that whereas Parliament could specify conditions for disqualification, those conditions would apply equally to candidates and sitting members. Therefore, the exception carved out for sitting members was unconstitutional. The judgment further cited Article 101 that if a Member of Parliament was disqualified under Article 102, “his seat shall thereupon become vacant”. Therefore, the disqualification was automatic and had immediate effect if the conditions of Article 102 were met.So, what happens if the conviction is suspended? Navjot Singh Sidhu was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment when he was an MP. He resigned his seat but wanted to contest the election, and appealed for a stay on his conviction. The Supreme Court stayed his conviction in 2007, which removed the disqualification until the appeal was decided. This decision allowed him to contest the election. This issue was also discussed in the Lily Thomas judgment (2013). The judgment stated that a disqualified person may obtain a stay on his conviction, and cited an earlier 2007 judgment that the disqualification would be removed from the date of the stay order. So what happens now? The Lakshadweep seat was declared vacant but the ECI, after the stay order, announced deferring the byelection.The Lok Sabha has kept the seat vacant and has not yet reinstated the MP. The reason the High Court granted the stay was to avoid an expensive election. The question is whether the removal of disqualification can be back dated as if it never happened and the election avoided. Or whether the disqualification is removed only from the date of the stay order, and, therefore, the vacated seat be filled only through a byelection. This conundrum arises because the Lily Thomas judgment requires the seat to be vacated immediately upon disqualification whereas the Kerala High Court stay tries to ensure that the MP retains the seat until the appeal is decided. The answer will also have implications for similar cases in the future.Q.Which of the provided statements lend support to the central argument presented in the passage?a)The interpretation of Article 102 in the Lily Thomas vs Union of India judgment, which mandates equal treatment of candidates and sitting members for disqualification, might be viewed as excessively rigid since it doesnt allow for any exceptions or considerations in varying circumstances.b)Treating candidates running for elections and sitting members differently in terms of disqualification could be perceived as a violation of the constitutional principle of equality as outlined in Article 14. Both groups are subject to disqualification if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more.c)The disqualification of a convicted candidate or member under Article 102 is instantaneous and obligatory, with an acknowledged exception for sitting members.d)The rationale presented by the Supreme Court in the K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan case, suggesting that disqualifying a sitting member would disproportionately affect a partys legislative strength, could be seen as arbitrary and speculative. This assumption implies that a disqualified members replacement would invariably have a different party affiliation.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?.

Solutions for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided. The differential treatment of candidates for elections and sitting members was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. In the latter case, the strength of the party in the legislature would change, and could have an adverse impact if a government had a thin majority. It would also trigger a byelection. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the two categories differently.The Court also considered whether in case of a disqualified candidate who is later acquitted, the disqualification would be removed with retrospective effect. It stated that this could not be done as this would require the results of the election to be cancelled. Therefore, the removal of disqualification would be prospective and for future elections. In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court again considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of India). It stated that Article 102 empowers Parliament to make law regarding disqualification of a person “for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament”. It interpreted this phrase to mean that whereas Parliament could specify conditions for disqualification, those conditions would apply equally to candidates and sitting members. Therefore, the exception carved out for sitting members was unconstitutional. The judgment further cited Article 101 that if a Member of Parliament was disqualified under Article 102, “his seat shall thereupon become vacant”. Therefore, the disqualification was automatic and had immediate effect if the conditions of Article 102 were met.So, what happens if the conviction is suspended? Navjot Singh Sidhu was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment when he was an MP. He resigned his seat but wanted to contest the election, and appealed for a stay on his conviction. The Supreme Court stayed his conviction in 2007, which removed the disqualification until the appeal was decided. This decision allowed him to contest the election. This issue was also discussed in the Lily Thomas judgment (2013). The judgment stated that a disqualified person may obtain a stay on his conviction, and cited an earlier 2007 judgment that the disqualification would be removed from the date of the stay order. So what happens now? The Lakshadweep seat was declared vacant but the ECI, after the stay order, announced deferring the byelection.The Lok Sabha has kept the seat vacant and has not yet reinstated the MP. The reason the High Court granted the stay was to avoid an expensive election. The question is whether the removal of disqualification can be back dated as if it never happened and the election avoided. Or whether the disqualification is removed only from the date of the stay order, and, therefore, the vacated seat be filled only through a byelection. This conundrum arises because the Lily Thomas judgment requires the seat to be vacated immediately upon disqualification whereas the Kerala High Court stay tries to ensure that the MP retains the seat until the appeal is decided. The answer will also have implications for similar cases in the future.Q.Which of the provided statements lend support to the central argument presented in the passage?a)The interpretation of Article 102 in the Lily Thomas vs Union of India judgment, which mandates equal treatment of candidates and sitting members for disqualification, might be viewed as excessively rigid since it doesnt allow for any exceptions or considerations in varying circumstances.b)Treating candidates running for elections and sitting members differently in terms of disqualification could be perceived as a violation of the constitutional principle of equality as outlined in Article 14. Both groups are subject to disqualification if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more.c)The disqualification of a convicted candidate or member under Article 102 is instantaneous and obligatory, with an acknowledged exception for sitting members.d)The rationale presented by the Supreme Court in the K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan case, suggesting that disqualifying a sitting member would disproportionately affect a partys legislative strength, could be seen as arbitrary and speculative. This assumption implies that a disqualified members replacement would invariably have a different party affiliation.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CLAT. Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CLAT Exam by signing up for free.

Here you can find the meaning of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided. The differential treatment of candidates for elections and sitting members was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. In the latter case, the strength of the party in the legislature would change, and could have an adverse impact if a government had a thin majority. It would also trigger a byelection. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the two categories differently.The Court also considered whether in case of a disqualified candidate who is later acquitted, the disqualification would be removed with retrospective effect. It stated that this could not be done as this would require the results of the election to be cancelled. Therefore, the removal of disqualification would be prospective and for future elections. In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court again considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of India). It stated that Article 102 empowers Parliament to make law regarding disqualification of a person “for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament”. It interpreted this phrase to mean that whereas Parliament could specify conditions for disqualification, those conditions would apply equally to candidates and sitting members. Therefore, the exception carved out for sitting members was unconstitutional. The judgment further cited Article 101 that if a Member of Parliament was disqualified under Article 102, “his seat shall thereupon become vacant”. Therefore, the disqualification was automatic and had immediate effect if the conditions of Article 102 were met.So, what happens if the conviction is suspended? Navjot Singh Sidhu was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment when he was an MP. He resigned his seat but wanted to contest the election, and appealed for a stay on his conviction. The Supreme Court stayed his conviction in 2007, which removed the disqualification until the appeal was decided. This decision allowed him to contest the election. This issue was also discussed in the Lily Thomas judgment (2013). The judgment stated that a disqualified person may obtain a stay on his conviction, and cited an earlier 2007 judgment that the disqualification would be removed from the date of the stay order. So what happens now? The Lakshadweep seat was declared vacant but the ECI, after the stay order, announced deferring the byelection.The Lok Sabha has kept the seat vacant and has not yet reinstated the MP. The reason the High Court granted the stay was to avoid an expensive election. The question is whether the removal of disqualification can be back dated as if it never happened and the election avoided. Or whether the disqualification is removed only from the date of the stay order, and, therefore, the vacated seat be filled only through a byelection. This conundrum arises because the Lily Thomas judgment requires the seat to be vacated immediately upon disqualification whereas the Kerala High Court stay tries to ensure that the MP retains the seat until the appeal is decided. The answer will also have implications for similar cases in the future.Q.Which of the provided statements lend support to the central argument presented in the passage?a)The interpretation of Article 102 in the Lily Thomas vs Union of India judgment, which mandates equal treatment of candidates and sitting members for disqualification, might be viewed as excessively rigid since it doesnt allow for any exceptions or considerations in varying circumstances.b)Treating candidates running for elections and sitting members differently in terms of disqualification could be perceived as a violation of the constitutional principle of equality as outlined in Article 14. Both groups are subject to disqualification if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more.c)The disqualification of a convicted candidate or member under Article 102 is instantaneous and obligatory, with an acknowledged exception for sitting members.d)The rationale presented by the Supreme Court in the K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan case, suggesting that disqualifying a sitting member would disproportionately affect a partys legislative strength, could be seen as arbitrary and speculative. This assumption implies that a disqualified members replacement would invariably have a different party affiliation.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided. The differential treatment of candidates for elections and sitting members was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. In the latter case, the strength of the party in the legislature would change, and could have an adverse impact if a government had a thin majority. It would also trigger a byelection. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the two categories differently.The Court also considered whether in case of a disqualified candidate who is later acquitted, the disqualification would be removed with retrospective effect. It stated that this could not be done as this would require the results of the election to be cancelled. Therefore, the removal of disqualification would be prospective and for future elections. In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court again considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of India). It stated that Article 102 empowers Parliament to make law regarding disqualification of a person “for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament”. It interpreted this phrase to mean that whereas Parliament could specify conditions for disqualification, those conditions would apply equally to candidates and sitting members. Therefore, the exception carved out for sitting members was unconstitutional. The judgment further cited Article 101 that if a Member of Parliament was disqualified under Article 102, “his seat shall thereupon become vacant”. Therefore, the disqualification was automatic and had immediate effect if the conditions of Article 102 were met.So, what happens if the conviction is suspended? Navjot Singh Sidhu was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment when he was an MP. He resigned his seat but wanted to contest the election, and appealed for a stay on his conviction. The Supreme Court stayed his conviction in 2007, which removed the disqualification until the appeal was decided. This decision allowed him to contest the election. This issue was also discussed in the Lily Thomas judgment (2013). The judgment stated that a disqualified person may obtain a stay on his conviction, and cited an earlier 2007 judgment that the disqualification would be removed from the date of the stay order. So what happens now? The Lakshadweep seat was declared vacant but the ECI, after the stay order, announced deferring the byelection.The Lok Sabha has kept the seat vacant and has not yet reinstated the MP. The reason the High Court granted the stay was to avoid an expensive election. The question is whether the removal of disqualification can be back dated as if it never happened and the election avoided. Or whether the disqualification is removed only from the date of the stay order, and, therefore, the vacated seat be filled only through a byelection. This conundrum arises because the Lily Thomas judgment requires the seat to be vacated immediately upon disqualification whereas the Kerala High Court stay tries to ensure that the MP retains the seat until the appeal is decided. The answer will also have implications for similar cases in the future.Q.Which of the provided statements lend support to the central argument presented in the passage?a)The interpretation of Article 102 in the Lily Thomas vs Union of India judgment, which mandates equal treatment of candidates and sitting members for disqualification, might be viewed as excessively rigid since it doesnt allow for any exceptions or considerations in varying circumstances.b)Treating candidates running for elections and sitting members differently in terms of disqualification could be perceived as a violation of the constitutional principle of equality as outlined in Article 14. Both groups are subject to disqualification if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more.c)The disqualification of a convicted candidate or member under Article 102 is instantaneous and obligatory, with an acknowledged exception for sitting members.d)The rationale presented by the Supreme Court in the K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan case, suggesting that disqualifying a sitting member would disproportionately affect a partys legislative strength, could be seen as arbitrary and speculative. This assumption implies that a disqualified members replacement would invariably have a different party affiliation.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided. The differential treatment of candidates for elections and sitting members was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. In the latter case, the strength of the party in the legislature would change, and could have an adverse impact if a government had a thin majority. It would also trigger a byelection. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the two categories differently.The Court also considered whether in case of a disqualified candidate who is later acquitted, the disqualification would be removed with retrospective effect. It stated that this could not be done as this would require the results of the election to be cancelled. Therefore, the removal of disqualification would be prospective and for future elections. In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court again considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of India). It stated that Article 102 empowers Parliament to make law regarding disqualification of a person “for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament”. It interpreted this phrase to mean that whereas Parliament could specify conditions for disqualification, those conditions would apply equally to candidates and sitting members. Therefore, the exception carved out for sitting members was unconstitutional. The judgment further cited Article 101 that if a Member of Parliament was disqualified under Article 102, “his seat shall thereupon become vacant”. Therefore, the disqualification was automatic and had immediate effect if the conditions of Article 102 were met.So, what happens if the conviction is suspended? Navjot Singh Sidhu was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment when he was an MP. He resigned his seat but wanted to contest the election, and appealed for a stay on his conviction. The Supreme Court stayed his conviction in 2007, which removed the disqualification until the appeal was decided. This decision allowed him to contest the election. This issue was also discussed in the Lily Thomas judgment (2013). The judgment stated that a disqualified person may obtain a stay on his conviction, and cited an earlier 2007 judgment that the disqualification would be removed from the date of the stay order. So what happens now? The Lakshadweep seat was declared vacant but the ECI, after the stay order, announced deferring the byelection.The Lok Sabha has kept the seat vacant and has not yet reinstated the MP. The reason the High Court granted the stay was to avoid an expensive election. The question is whether the removal of disqualification can be back dated as if it never happened and the election avoided. Or whether the disqualification is removed only from the date of the stay order, and, therefore, the vacated seat be filled only through a byelection. This conundrum arises because the Lily Thomas judgment requires the seat to be vacated immediately upon disqualification whereas the Kerala High Court stay tries to ensure that the MP retains the seat until the appeal is decided. The answer will also have implications for similar cases in the future.Q.Which of the provided statements lend support to the central argument presented in the passage?a)The interpretation of Article 102 in the Lily Thomas vs Union of India judgment, which mandates equal treatment of candidates and sitting members for disqualification, might be viewed as excessively rigid since it doesnt allow for any exceptions or considerations in varying circumstances.b)Treating candidates running for elections and sitting members differently in terms of disqualification could be perceived as a violation of the constitutional principle of equality as outlined in Article 14. Both groups are subject to disqualification if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more.c)The disqualification of a convicted candidate or member under Article 102 is instantaneous and obligatory, with an acknowledged exception for sitting members.d)The rationale presented by the Supreme Court in the K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan case, suggesting that disqualifying a sitting member would disproportionately affect a partys legislative strength, could be seen as arbitrary and speculative. This assumption implies that a disqualified members replacement would invariably have a different party affiliation.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided. The differential treatment of candidates for elections and sitting members was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. In the latter case, the strength of the party in the legislature would change, and could have an adverse impact if a government had a thin majority. It would also trigger a byelection. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the two categories differently.The Court also considered whether in case of a disqualified candidate who is later acquitted, the disqualification would be removed with retrospective effect. It stated that this could not be done as this would require the results of the election to be cancelled. Therefore, the removal of disqualification would be prospective and for future elections. In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court again considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of India). It stated that Article 102 empowers Parliament to make law regarding disqualification of a person “for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament”. It interpreted this phrase to mean that whereas Parliament could specify conditions for disqualification, those conditions would apply equally to candidates and sitting members. Therefore, the exception carved out for sitting members was unconstitutional. The judgment further cited Article 101 that if a Member of Parliament was disqualified under Article 102, “his seat shall thereupon become vacant”. Therefore, the disqualification was automatic and had immediate effect if the conditions of Article 102 were met.So, what happens if the conviction is suspended? Navjot Singh Sidhu was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment when he was an MP. He resigned his seat but wanted to contest the election, and appealed for a stay on his conviction. The Supreme Court stayed his conviction in 2007, which removed the disqualification until the appeal was decided. This decision allowed him to contest the election. This issue was also discussed in the Lily Thomas judgment (2013). The judgment stated that a disqualified person may obtain a stay on his conviction, and cited an earlier 2007 judgment that the disqualification would be removed from the date of the stay order. So what happens now? The Lakshadweep seat was declared vacant but the ECI, after the stay order, announced deferring the byelection.The Lok Sabha has kept the seat vacant and has not yet reinstated the MP. The reason the High Court granted the stay was to avoid an expensive election. The question is whether the removal of disqualification can be back dated as if it never happened and the election avoided. Or whether the disqualification is removed only from the date of the stay order, and, therefore, the vacated seat be filled only through a byelection. This conundrum arises because the Lily Thomas judgment requires the seat to be vacated immediately upon disqualification whereas the Kerala High Court stay tries to ensure that the MP retains the seat until the appeal is decided. The answer will also have implications for similar cases in the future.Q.Which of the provided statements lend support to the central argument presented in the passage?a)The interpretation of Article 102 in the Lily Thomas vs Union of India judgment, which mandates equal treatment of candidates and sitting members for disqualification, might be viewed as excessively rigid since it doesnt allow for any exceptions or considerations in varying circumstances.b)Treating candidates running for elections and sitting members differently in terms of disqualification could be perceived as a violation of the constitutional principle of equality as outlined in Article 14. Both groups are subject to disqualification if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more.c)The disqualification of a convicted candidate or member under Article 102 is instantaneous and obligatory, with an acknowledged exception for sitting members.d)The rationale presented by the Supreme Court in the K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan case, suggesting that disqualifying a sitting member would disproportionately affect a partys legislative strength, could be seen as arbitrary and speculative. This assumption implies that a disqualified members replacement would invariably have a different party affiliation.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an ample number of questions to practice Direction: Read the following passage carefully and answer the questions given below:The Representation of the People Act, 1951 provides that a person will be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. The person is disqualified for the period of imprisonment and a further six years. There is an exception for sitting members; they have been provided a period of three months from the date of conviction to appeal; the disqualification will not be applicable until the appeal is decided. The differential treatment of candidates for elections and sitting members was challenged under Article 14 (right to equality). A Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in 2005 (K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan), decided that the consequences of disqualifying a contestant and a sitting member were different. In the latter case, the strength of the party in the legislature would change, and could have an adverse impact if a government had a thin majority. It would also trigger a byelection. Therefore, it was reasonable to treat the two categories differently.The Court also considered whether in case of a disqualified candidate who is later acquitted, the disqualification would be removed with retrospective effect. It stated that this could not be done as this would require the results of the election to be cancelled. Therefore, the removal of disqualification would be prospective and for future elections. In 2013, a two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court again considered whether this exception was constitutionally invalid (Lily Thomas vs Union of India). It stated that Article 102 empowers Parliament to make law regarding disqualification of a person “for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament”. It interpreted this phrase to mean that whereas Parliament could specify conditions for disqualification, those conditions would apply equally to candidates and sitting members. Therefore, the exception carved out for sitting members was unconstitutional. The judgment further cited Article 101 that if a Member of Parliament was disqualified under Article 102, “his seat shall thereupon become vacant”. Therefore, the disqualification was automatic and had immediate effect if the conditions of Article 102 were met.So, what happens if the conviction is suspended? Navjot Singh Sidhu was convicted and sentenced to three years imprisonment when he was an MP. He resigned his seat but wanted to contest the election, and appealed for a stay on his conviction. The Supreme Court stayed his conviction in 2007, which removed the disqualification until the appeal was decided. This decision allowed him to contest the election. This issue was also discussed in the Lily Thomas judgment (2013). The judgment stated that a disqualified person may obtain a stay on his conviction, and cited an earlier 2007 judgment that the disqualification would be removed from the date of the stay order. So what happens now? The Lakshadweep seat was declared vacant but the ECI, after the stay order, announced deferring the byelection.The Lok Sabha has kept the seat vacant and has not yet reinstated the MP. The reason the High Court granted the stay was to avoid an expensive election. The question is whether the removal of disqualification can be back dated as if it never happened and the election avoided. Or whether the disqualification is removed only from the date of the stay order, and, therefore, the vacated seat be filled only through a byelection. This conundrum arises because the Lily Thomas judgment requires the seat to be vacated immediately upon disqualification whereas the Kerala High Court stay tries to ensure that the MP retains the seat until the appeal is decided. The answer will also have implications for similar cases in the future.Q.Which of the provided statements lend support to the central argument presented in the passage?a)The interpretation of Article 102 in the Lily Thomas vs Union of India judgment, which mandates equal treatment of candidates and sitting members for disqualification, might be viewed as excessively rigid since it doesnt allow for any exceptions or considerations in varying circumstances.b)Treating candidates running for elections and sitting members differently in terms of disqualification could be perceived as a violation of the constitutional principle of equality as outlined in Article 14. Both groups are subject to disqualification if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more.c)The disqualification of a convicted candidate or member under Article 102 is instantaneous and obligatory, with an acknowledged exception for sitting members.d)The rationale presented by the Supreme Court in the K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan case, suggesting that disqualifying a sitting member would disproportionately affect a partys legislative strength, could be seen as arbitrary and speculative. This assumption implies that a disqualified members replacement would invariably have a different party affiliation.Correct answer is option 'C'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CLAT tests.