Who is Lily Thomas?

The answer to this question lies in an old, familiar story:

Once upon a time, politicians in India were public-spirited freedom fighters and nation-builders. Then came a generation of midgets who made up for their lack of real public support by using criminals to intimidate voters, stuff ballot boxes and bully the opposition. One fine morning, the midgets woke up to discover that their pit-bulls had taken over the podium. Instead of remaining as mere sidekicks, the criminals donned the politicians white costume, and got themselves elected to the parliament and state assemblies.

The old story had, by now, become a real nightmare. In 2012, more than 25 percent of the sitting Members of Parliament (MPs) faced criminal indictment. In State Assemblies, the number hovered around 20 per cent. The public remained largely apathetic -- except for occasional howls of protest from NGOs. So the political parties, already struggling to fund election campaigns, continued to put up candidates who had been flitting in and out of courthouses and jails.

Then, on 10 July 2013, something unusual happened. A Supreme Court bench of justices A K Patnaik and S J Mukhopadhaya held that, "The only question is about the vires of section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951 and we hold that it is ultra vires and that the disqualification takes place from the date of conviction".

Behind all the Latin and legalese, this simply meant that, henceforth, convicted criminals could no longer sit in the Indian parliament, or in the state assemblies.

Who had prodded the Supreme Court to come to this wonderful conclusion? --- An old lady named Lily Thomas.

Lily is one of oldest advocates practicing at the Supreme Court of India.  In 2005, she had filed a writ petition in the apex court along with Satya Narain Shukla, challenging a provision (Section 8.4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,  which protects a convicted lawmakers against disqualification if they just filed an appeal. It took her eight years to win this fight.

Now around 85 years old, she was of the earliest women to get an LLM degree in India. She began and  her practice in the Madras High Court. In 1960, she moved to Delhi to do a PhD but discovered that she was not really cut out for academia. “I realized that I was not competent to do research,” she says, “so I started practicing in the Supreme Court”.

The criminals in our parliament will surely rue the day she started 'practicing'!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

REFERENCES & LINKS

* Kalra, Aparna (2013): Lily Thomas: 87-year-old crusader against 'tainted' legislators, Sify-BS, 14 July 2013 -- url -- http://www.sify.com/news/lily-thomas-87-year-old-crusader-against-tainted-legislators-news-national-nhoanwbhjgj.html
* PTI (2013): MPs, MLAs will be disqualified on date of conviction: SC, New Indian Express, 10Jul13 -- url -- http://newindianexpress.com/nation/MPs-MLAs-will-be-disqualified-on-date-of-conviction-SC/2013/07/10/article1676988.ece
* Heroes who have sent politicians scurrying for cover, Mumbai Mirror, 17 July 2013 -- http://www.mumbaimirror.com/news/india/Heroes-who-have-sent-politicians-scurrying-for-cover/articleshow/21048175.cms ]
* Bar & Bench article (17 July 2013) -- http://www.barandbench.com/content/%E2%80%9C-have-criminals-politicians-insult-our-parliamentary-system%E2%80%9D%E2%80%93-lily-thomas#.UfEBlI3EKSp
* Vaishnav, Milan (2011): THE MARKET FOR INDIA'S CRIMINAL POLITICIANS, The Hindu Business Line, 2011http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/the-market-for-indias-criminal-politicians/article2893232.ece

* The Representation of the People Act, 1951 -- url -- http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/election/volume%201/representation%20of%20the%20people%20act,%201951.pdf

Who was Kihota Hollohan?

At the core of numerous 'landmark judgments' passed by the Supreme Court of India, are individuals who stood up against the system and ended up re-defining the Indian Constitution.

Mr. Inder Golak Nath protested against the Punjab government for delaring his land 'surplus', and fit to be taken over by the state. His legal battle went on for years until the Supreme Court not only ruled in his favor but also decided on 27 Feb., 1967, that the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution could not be used to curtail fundamental rights.

Another landmark case was filed in 1970 by Swami Keshavananda Bharati, head of a monastry (muth) in Kerala. He was objecting against attmempts by the Kerala state government (under land reform acts) to restrict control over the monasty's property. This case too went on to address the much grander issue of the Parliament's power to amend the Constitution. It marked the beginning of something that has been called the "basic structure" of the Constitution which cannot be altered by any government, under any circumstances.

Now we come to Kihota Hollohan. A legal battle between this gentleman and Mr. Zanchillu also resulted in a Supreme Court judgement (1992) that not only has a bearing on how elected representatives behave in the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies, it unwittingly also prevents prevents the legislature from performing one of its principle functions: scrutiny of the executive. It does this through an anti-defection law which rests on the assumption that  'elections are won by political parties rather than persons'.

Whatever be the pros and cons of the anti-defection law, one curious thing about Kihota Hollohan is that there is hardly any information about him or about his opponent, Zanchillu, in the legal tomes that rest in cyberspace. Nothing in Manupatra; nothing in indiankanoon.com .

So far, the only bit of information I could find is that Mr. Hollohan was the Nagaland state minister for social security and welfare, in 2003.

Wonder what was it that Zanchillu did to so upset him...

.........................................................................
REFERENCES

North East Enquirer (7 July 2003) - http://www.nenanews.com/NEE%20July%207%20-%2021,%2003/oh17.htm

Supreme Court of India: Shri Kihota Hollohon vs Mr. Zachilhu And Others on 18 February, 1992 - URL - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/542383/

Scribd: A Case Analysis on Kihota Hollohon - http://www.scribd.com/doc/47535196/Case-Analysis-of-the-Case-of-Kihoto-Hollohon

Khanna, Kartik and Dhvani Shah (2012): ANTI-DEFECTION LAW: A DEATH KNELL FOR PARLIAMENTARY DISSENT? NUJS Law Review 2012; URL - http://www.nujslawreview.org/articles2012vol5no1/kartik-khanna-and-dhvani-shah.pdf