With a 2:1 majority, the Supreme Court suspended the conviction of BSP MP Afzal Ansari under the UP Gangster Act, which has paved the way for restoring his membership in the Lok Sabha.

Towards suspending the conviction, the majority, i.e., Justice Surya Kant and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan, observed that the Courts must construe the law in its extant state instead of delving into considerations pertaining to the ethical character of actions.

In that context, it was said that, "substantial doubt has been cast upon the Appellant’s criminal antecedents along with the veracity and threat posed by these claims, in light of the many FIRs that have been produced in these proceedings. While this concern is undeniably pertinent, it remains the duty of the courts to interpret the law in its current form. Although ‘moral turpitude’ may carry relevance within the context of elected representatives, the courts are bound to construe the law in its extant state and confine their deliberations to those facets explicitly outlined, rather than delving into considerations pertaining to the moral rectitude or ethical character of actions."

Also stressing on the need to protect the appellant's future, the it was observed that, "While the pending appeal raises significant legal and factual issues, it is exigent that the Appellant’s future not be left hanging in the balance solely due to the said conviction. In such instances, where the Appellant’s disqualification and the State’s criminal proceedings intersect, it becomes incumbent upon the Court in which the appeal is pending, to hear the matter out of turn and expeditiously adjudicate the same."

Justice Dipankar Datta wrote a dissenting opinion, stressing the necessity to balance the importance of the electorate's representation and the enforcement of legal accountability within the democratic framework. It was also warned that if a mere disqualification is considered to amount to, "irreversible consequences", it would result in the Court sailing in an unnavigable sea of generalization, where, upon disqualification suffered due to the conviction, a parliamentarian would be entitled to an automatic stay on his conviction without the requisite pleadings.

Senior Counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi appeared for the appellant.

In this case, the appellant requested a stay on his conviction during the pendency of the Criminal Appeal before the High Court. The appellant, Afzal Ansari, was a public representative, having served as a Member of the Legislative Assembly in Uttar Pradesh for five consecutive terms and as a Member of Parliament for two terms. The Lok Sabha had disqualified him following his conviction under the UP Gangster Act.

Majority Opinion

It was noted that the sequence of events, beginning from the registration of the New FIR until the rejection of the Appellant’s plea for suspension of conviction by the High Court, was beset with some fundamental misconceptions and, therefore, deserved closer legal scrutiny.

Holding that the appellant's case warranted an order of stay of conviction, although partially, it was observed that, "where conviction, if allowed to operate would lead to irreparable damage and where the convict cannot be compensated in any monetary terms or otherwise, if he is acquitted later on, that by itself carves out an exceptional situation. Having applied the specific criteria outlined hereinabove to the present factual matrix, it is our considered view that the Appellant’s case warrants an order of stay on his award of conviction, though partially."

It was also noted that the potential ramifications of declining to suspend the conviction were multifaceted and observed that, "it would deprive the Appellant’s constituency of its legitimate representation in the Legislature, since a bye-election may not be held given the remainder tenure of the current Lok Sabha. Conversely, it would also impede the Appellant’s ability to represent his constituency based on the allegations, the veracity whereof is to be scrutinised on a re-appraisal of the entire evidence in the First Criminal Appeal pending before the High Court. This would potentially lead to de facto incarceration of the Appellant for a period of four years under the UP Gangsters Act and an additional six-year disqualification period, even if he is eventually acquitted, which would effectively disqualify him from contesting elections for a period of ten years."

Thus, it was deemed appropriate to partially allow the appeal and suspend the conviction awarded to the appellant. It was clarified that the appellant could attend the House proceedings, but will not be allowed to cast his votes or draw perks or monetary benefits.

Dissenting Opinion

It was observed that, "I am afraid, in case weight towards allowing the present appeal is lent, it could unwittingly cater to condoning the consequences looming large before the appellant arising from his conviction, rather than addressing the purported irreversible consequences faced by the constituency."

In similar context, it was also said that a parliamentarian/legislator cannot be allowed to obtain a ‘double advantage’ where he implores the Court for a stay of conviction being a parliamentarian/legislator while simultaneously failing to provide full disclosure of consequences regardless of what the reasons are, whether due to inadvertence, negligence, or mistake.

In light of the same, it was said that, "No court, much less this Court, should feel chained by misplaced sympathy towards assumed or imagined ramifications on the constituency of the parliamentarian/legislator who has been convicted."

Cause Title: Afjal Ansari vs State of UP

Click here to read/download the Judgment


Justice Surya KantJustice Ujjal Bhuyan

Verdictum News Desk