ASSEMBLY POLL '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ELECTIONS '98
ARCHIVES

SC rejects Centre's plea to review JMM payoff verdict

In a significant development, the Supreme Court today dismissed in the open court a petition by the Centre seeking review of its verdict in the infamous Jharkhand Mukti Morcha payoff case.

The petition was dismissed by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Chief Justice A S Anand on the ground of 'unexplained, inordinate delay' of more than seven months in filing the review petition.

The judgement sought to be reviewed was delivered by a five-judge Constitution Bench headed by Justice S C Agrawal on April 17 this year.

The judges said they decided to hear the review petition in the open court because there had been no explanation about the delay in filing it.

''There is an inordinate delay in filing the review petition. The application seeking condonation of delay contains no reasonable or satisfactory explanation. It is merely mentioned that the delay occurred due to paucity of staff. It is hardly any ground for condonation of delay. The condonation of delay is therefore dismissed and as a consequence, the review petition is also dismissed as time-barred,'' the judges observed.

In the April 17, 1998 verdict, the court, by a majority of 3-2, held that on a proper interpretation of Article 105(2) of the Constitution, members of Parliament who had voted against the no-confidence motion against the then government led by P V Narasimha Rao on July 28, 1993, after allegedly receiving bribes for doing so, would enjoy the immunity granted under that Article.

But the MPs who gave bribes were not protected by this immunity and were therefore liable for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the majority judgment further held.

On the issue of whether MPs were public servants or not under the PCA, there was complete unanimity among the five judges that they were public servants.

The minority judgment in the case declared by Justices S C Agrawal and A S Anand (now CJ), held that both classes of MPs -- those who gave the bribe and those who received it -- were not entitled to the immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution and were therefore liable to be prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

It was that part of the judgment which held that the MPs who received a bribe and voted against the motion were entitled to immunity under Article 105(2) of the Constitution, which had sought to be reviewed in the petition dismissed today.

A petition seeking review of a Supreme Court judgment has to be filed within 30 days under the court rules, also pointing out an error apparent in the judgment.

UNI

Tell us what you think of this report