Statement of Facts

Ms. Aruna Tyagi, the Chief Minister of the State of United Province and a Member of
the Rajya Sabha of India has been accused of corruption charges and amassing wealth
disproportionate to the declared sources of income amounting to RS. 66 crores. After the
investigation, the investigating agency had charge sheeted Ms. Aruna Tyagi.
After 12 years of inordinate delay, the Special Court pronounced the decision and
convicted Ms. Aruna Tyagi with 5years of Rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 25
Lakhs, alongwith the other co-accused. This caused immediate disqualification of Ms.
Aruna Tyagi to continue as a Member of Parliament by virtue of latest Judgement given
by Honble Supreme Court of India delivered in Lily Thomas case, Writ Petition (Civil)
No. 490 of 2005 (hereinafter latest judgement) pronounced on 10th July 2013.
Ms. Aruna Tyagi filed the Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court of India the latest
judgement, in which the Honble Supreme Court had held that the person who is not
eligible for contesting an election for period of 6 years if he is convicted with
imprisonment of not less than 2 years for any of the offences mentioned in sub-section
(1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the Act, 1951, then in the same situation he cannot hold
the office as Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assemblies of State.
The Supreme Court further held that the Parliament of India does not have the power to
enact sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Act, 1951. The Court made it clear that it was
long back the same court has held that grounds provided under Article 102(1) and
191(1) of the Constitution provides same set of disqualifications for election as well as
for continuing as a member.
Aggrieved by the latest judgement Ms. Aruna Tyagi pleaded before the Supreme Court
of India through SLP that our criminal justice system is based on fundamental principle
of innocence in favour of accused and by way of appeal he can always approach the
higher court to seek justice. In the instant case she had been disqualified without being
provided the benefit of right to appeal.
The petitioner pleaded that Constitutional Bench of the Supreme Court in APPEAL
(CIVIL) NO. 8213 of 2001 had expressly accepted the validity of sub-section (4) of
Section 8 of the Act, 1951. The petitioner pleaded that if the convicted Member is
disqualified with immediate effect, it will lead to by-election and in case the Court of
Appeal acquits the convicted, then it will create more problems.
The petitioner further submitted that the source of legislative power for enacting subsection (4) of Section o of the Act, 1951 is very much there in Articles 102(1)(e) and
191(1)(e) of the Constitution of India and if not in these articles of the Constitution, then

in Article 246(1) read with Entry 67 of List I of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution
and Article 248 of the Constitution.