The ethical question

Sir, - Consider what would be the position if Ms. Jayalalitha is allowed to contest and wins and rules the State and it is subsequently found by the appellate court that she is guilty. Would this not cause enormous harm to the people of Tamil Nadu, irreparable harm at that? I think that the balance of convenience lies heavily in favour of her not being allowed to contest. Leave alone the legal question, consider the ethical question. Not only Caesar, even his wife must be above suspicion. Can we consider Ms. Jayalalitha, who has been found guilty by a court of law to be above suspicion? Would it have been possible to foist a case against Mahatma Gandhi or Jawaharlal Nehru or Kamaraj? A person in public life must be of such stature that nobody would dare to foist a case against him or her.

T. Srinivasan,

Chennai

Sir, - Your Editorial has correctly appreciated the main issues posed in the verdict of Mr. Justice Malai Subramanian. The contentions of the court have sequential importance to the members of the legal profession in that, the court has unequivocally stated that when a sentence is suspended by the court, the conviction also is suspended automatically, as these two aspects of the judgment are inseparable twins.

There is no express provision pertaining to suspension of conviction under Sec. 389 of the Cr. P.C, but the apex court has opined that a conviction may be suspended by the appellate court if it concludes that irreparable hardship will be caused to the convict. The order of conviction by itself is incapable of execution. It is the order of sentence which is capable of execution and as these two are inseparable aspects of the judgment, making one ineffective will mechanically render the other pass into oblivion.

When an order of conviction is appealed against, the appellate court places itself in the role of a trial court. This legal position entitles the accused to the presumption of innocence and to the structural principle of not guilty till proved guilty, until the decision of the appellate court, which becomes indefeasibly final.

A judgment in the true judicial sense is incomplete if the post conviction stage is rendered inoperative by the court. Section 8(3) or (4) of the Representation of the People Act does not directly relate to offences but to sentence.

If Ms. Jayalalitha had been sentenced to a lesser punishment for the same offence, she would not have suffered any inhibition to contest the poll. As the proceedings got revived after the appeal, the date of disposal of the appeal should be the determining factor.

H. Syed Mathani,

Tiruchi

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Crime and punishment
Next     : Undermining the office of Speaker