Dr. Kailash Chand Saini, Author
The biggest irony of democracy is that the same people who make laws are often seen standing in the dock of the judiciary for the crime of breaking the law. Such moments are not just a personal failure of an individual, but raise a serious question mark on the character of the entire political system. Recently, on July 4, 2026, a similar decision of Delhi’s Rouse Avenue court caused a stir in the politics of Bihar.
The court sentenced Raju Kumar Singh, BJP MLA from Sahebganj seat, to four years of imprisonment after finding him guilty in the case of death of a female doctor during the joyous firing during the New Year celebrations of 2018. This decision is not just a verdict in a criminal case, but is also a strong comment by the judiciary on the accountability and public conduct of public representatives.
With this punishment, Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 automatically becomes active. This provision makes it clear that if an MP or MLA is sentenced by a court to a prison term of two years or more, his membership ceases with immediate effect. The Supreme Court’s landmark judgment in Lily Thomas vs. Union of India (2013) had further clarified this principle by stating that membership of a public representative cannot be secured merely because an appeal is pending in a higher court.
This case of Sahebganj MLA is not an isolated incident. This is a new link in a broader national trend in which this legal strike by the judiciary is seen being activated from time to time within the state legislatures. Especially in big states like Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan, its influence has influenced both the direction and condition of provincial politics.
The use of Section 8(3) in Uttar Pradesh has been the center of most discussion and political upheaval. This provision affected the future of many big political faces in the country’s largest assembly with 400 members. Senior Samajwadi Party leader Azam Khan was sentenced to three years imprisonment in a case of inflammatory speech and his membership was terminated. After this his son Abdullah Azam also came under the ambit of disqualification. Similarly, BJP MLA from Khatauli, Vikram Saini had to lose his legislative seat after his conviction in the Muzaffarnagar riots case.
Uttar Pradesh Assembly Secretariat is known for its prompt action in such cases. As soon as the certified copy of the sentence is received, a notification of cancellation of membership is issued. Although these disqualifications do not have any significant impact on the stability of the government due to the overwhelming majority of the ruling party, but at the local level, these incidents give rise to sympathies, caste equations and sharp political polarization.
The situation in Rajasthan has been different and much more sensitive than that of Uttar Pradesh. The political balance in the 200-member Rajasthan Assembly is often at a critical juncture, where even a small difference of seats between the ruling and the opposition can affect the stability of the government.
There are examples in the parliamentary history of Rajasthan, where judicial decisions affected the balance within the House. In the year 2016, the then BSP MLA of Dholpur BL Kushwaha had to lose his membership after his conviction. In the subsequent by-election, his wife Shobharani Kushwaha was elected MLA on BJP ticket. This is a living example of the fact that law can remove a person, but it is not so easy to eliminate his political influence.
In this sequence, another popular case of Rajasthan was that of BJP MLA Kanwar Lal Meena. In a nearly two-decade-old case in which he had threatened a sub-divisional officer and obstructed official work, the High Court had upheld his three-year sentence. Due to lack of relief from the higher courts, his membership was ultimately terminated and by-elections had to be held on that vacant seat.
These examples from Rajasthan make it clear that here merely getting bail after conviction is not enough. The real battle to save the legislature is to obtain a ‘stay of conviction’ from the higher courts, because mere postponement of conviction does not protect the membership. Only a clear ban on conviction can give a temporary lease of life to the legislature.
Comments are closed.