BJP MLA Kanwar Lal Meena's Assembly membership terminated after conviction in criminal case
The Rajasthan Legislative Assembly on Friday (May 23, 2025) terminated the membership of BJP MLA Kanwar Lal Meena after he was convicted and sentenced to three years in jail for pointing a pistol at a sub-divisional magistrate, officials said.
According to a notification issued by the Assembly Secretariat, Meena's membership stands terminated effective from May 1.
The Speaker sought legal opinion from the advocate general and senior legal experts before making the decision.
"The legal opinion, received today, cited Supreme Court precedents, stating that there was no option but to terminate the MLA's membership as his sentence was not stayed by the apex court," an official said.
Meena had approached the Supreme Court seeking suspension of his sentence. However, the top court dismissed his plea and directed him to surrender within two weeks. He surrendered before the Aklera court on May 21 and is currently lodged in jail.
On December 14, 2020, the ADJ Aklera court of Jhalawar sentenced Meena to three years imprisonment in a 20-year-old case, finding him guilty of obstructing government work, intimidating government officials and vandalising property.
The Assembly Secretariat had earlier served a notice to Meena, asking him to respond by May 7 regarding any relief obtained from the Supreme Court. With no stay granted on his conviction, the secretariat proceeded with the disqualification.
The Election Commission has been informed of the vacancy. Now, a by-election on the Anta seat would be held within six months, potentially before October 2025.
Leader of Opposition Tikaram Jully and state Congress president Govind Singh Dotasra and other Congress legislators had been demanding immediate action. They submitted multiple memorandums to the speaker and also met the governor over Meena's conviction.
Dotasra, reacting to Meena's termination from the assembly, said in a post on X: "After heavy pressure from the Congress party and the Leader of the Opposition filing a contempt petition, the membership of BJP's convicted MLA Kanwar Lal had to be cancelled. The Constitution is supreme in a democratic system."
Jully also termed the decision as a "victory of democracy and the dignity of the Constitution." He said several Congress delegations submitted memorandums to the governor and the speaker but the BJP government did not take any decision, which he said was "against the basic principles of democracy and the constitutional system".
In the 200-seat Rajasthan Assembly, the BJP has 118 MLAs and Congress has 66 MLAs.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
11 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Sibal questions Dhankar's ‘inaction' on impeachment notice against Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Rajya Sabha MP Kapil Sibal on Tuesday (June 10, 2025) questioned why Chairman Jagdeep Dhankhar had not taken any action on the notice for moving an impeachment motion against Allahabad High Court Judge Shekhar Kumar Yadav, and alleged the government was trying to save the judge after he made "entirely communal" remarks last year. Speaking on the subject of the Uniform Civil Code, Justice Shekhar Kumar Yadav of Allahabad High Court on December 8, 2024 reportedly said that Hindus did not expect Muslims to follow their culture but only wanted them not to disrespect the same. Mr. Sibal, who is also a senior advocate, said the whole incident smacks of "discrimination" as on one hand the Rajya Sabha secretary general wrote to Chief Justice of India to not go ahead with an in-house inquiry against Yadav as a petition was pending against him before the Upper House, while did not do so in the case of Justice Yashwant Varma. Mr. Sibal said it was very unfortunate and questions are bound to arise when the person who is sitting on the constitutional post, which is second in the hierarchy, does not fulfil constitutional obligations in six months. "On December 13, 2024, we had given a notice for an impeachment motion to Chairman Rajya Sabha, it had signatures of 55 MPs, six months have gone, but no steps have been taken," Mr. Sibal said at a press conference here. "I want to ask those who are sitting on constitutional posts, their responsibility is to only verify whether signatures are there or not, should that take six months? Another question that arises is whether this government is trying to protect Shekhar Yadav," Mr. Sibal said. On the "instructions" of the VHP, Mr. Yadav had made a speech in High Court premises and then the matter came to the Supreme Court which took action, he said. Justice Yadav said in December: 'I feel no hesitation in saying that this is India and it will run as per the wishes of its majority,' he said. A video of the speech was shared on social media by some of the event's attendees. The judge said that being a Hindu, he respected his religion, but that did not mean he had any 'ill will' towards other religions or faith. 'We do not expect you to take seven rounds [around the] fire while getting married... we don't want you to take a dip in Ganga... but we expect you to not to disrespect the culture, gods and great leaders of the country,' Justice Yadav said. Mr. Sibal added: 'Yadav was questioned in Delhi. A report was also sought from the CJI Allahabad High Court. I heard the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court gave a negative report, and amidst this, on February 13, 2025, the Chairman said that the matter should be looked at in a constitutional way and Parliament can take it forward.' The Rajya Sabha secretariat sent a letter to the CJI asking for no action and it was said the matter will be taken as there is an impeachment motion notice and the Supreme Court must stop its in-house procedure against Mr. Yadav, Mr. Sibal said. "I don't understand on what basis this happened? Should the Chairman write such a letter to the CJI? The in-house procedure is SC's own, it has no connection with the impeachment motion. Till now impeachment motion has not even been admitted, it has been six months and only signatures are being verified," Mr.. Sibal said. So when the impeachment motion has not been admitted, what relation does it have with the Supreme Court in-house inquiry, and even if it had been admitted, still what connection does it has with the inquiry, Mr. Sibal asked. 'Communal' statement "What Justice Yadav said is before everyone there is no doubt about that. He has not disputed it. The Supreme Court had to decide whether he should have said so, as according to us this is a totally communal statement. And also decide whether he should sit on the chair of the judge after making that statement," Mr. Sibal said. "Why did you not write a letter over in-house inquiry against Justice Varma. So does this government want to protect Shekhar Yadav, we think they want to save him," he said. So either no action will be taken or they will reject a few signatures in the impeachment notice and reject the motion so that "we go to the Supreme Court and it takes time which would ensure that Shekhar Yadav retires in 2026", Mr. Sibal said. "So according to me this is unfortunate and it smacks of discrimination. The intention of this government is to save Yadav because what he said was entirely communal," he said. Members of several opposition parties on December 13 had moved the notice in the Upper House for the impeachment of Allahabad High Court Judge Yadav over his controversial remarks at a VHP event. The notice for moving the impeachment motion was signed by 55 opposition MPs, including Mr. Sibal, Jairam Ramesh, Vivek Tankha, Digvijaya Singh, John Brittas, Manoj Kumar Jha and Saket Gokhale. The notice for the motion was moved under the Judges' (Inquiry) Act, 1968, and Article 218 of the Constitution, seeking initiation of proceedings for impeachment of Justice Yadav. The notice mentioned that the speech/lecture delivered by Justice Yadav during an event organised by the Vishva Hindu Parishad (VHP) prima facie showed that he "engaged in hate speech and incitement to communal disharmony in violation of the Constitution of India". The notice also mentioned that the judge prima facie showed that he targeted minorities and displayed bias and prejudice against them. At a VHP function on December 8, Justice Yadav said the main aim of a uniform civil code was to promote social harmony, gender equality and secularism. A day later, videos of the judge speaking on provocative issues, including the law working according to the majority, were circulated widely on social media, prompting strong reactions from several quarters, including opposition leaders.
News18
17 minutes ago
- News18
Supreme Court Sets Aside Patna HC Order Allowing Blanket Use Of Narco Test On All Accused
Last Updated: An order of the Patna High Court had allowed the police to subject all accused persons to narco-analysis tests during the course of investigation. The Supreme Court on Monday held that an accused person does not have an indefeasible right to undergo a narcoanalysis test, while at the same time clarifying that such a test may be permitted at an appropriate stage of trial upon application, provided the Court is satisfied that there is free consent and adequate safeguards in place. The Court made the observation in an Appeal challenging an order of the Patna High Court, which had allowed the police to subject all accused persons, including the Appellant, to narco-analysis tests during the course of investigation. The Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Prasanna B Varale allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, stating that it was contrary to the principles laid down in Selvi v State of Karnataka (2010), where the apex court had held that involuntary subjection to scientific techniques such as narco-analysis, lie detector, and brain mapping violates the fundamental right to personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. 'The accused has a right to voluntarily undergo a narcoanalysis test at an appropriate stage. We deem it appropriate to add, that the appropriate stage for such a test to be conducted is when the accused is exercising his right to lead evidence in a trial," the Court observed. However, the Bench emphasised that such a right is not absolute, and that any application made by an accused must be judicially assessed, taking into account factors such as free will, voluntariness, procedural safeguards, and the overall circumstances of the case. Facts of the Case The family members of the wife got an FIR lodged on August 24, 2022 under Sections 341, 342, 323, 363, 364, 498(A), 504, 506 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, suspecting foul play and alleging that the accused made repeated demands of dowry and used to beat the victim since the marriage on December 11, 2020. The Appellant contended the acceptance of such a submission by the High Court was in direct contravention of the exposition of law laid down by this court in the Selvi case, wherein it was observed that forceful subjection of an individual to techniques, such as the narco-analysis test, violates personal liberty enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution. Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal, acting as amicus curiae, pointed out that there has been a divergence of views taken by High Courts on the issue as to whether a narco-analysis test can be claimed by an accused as a matter of right. Given the suspect nature of a report of narco-analysis, he said that this position must be clarified. Court Decries Blanket Testing of All Accused Criticising the blanket direction of the Patna High Court that allowed narco-tests to be conducted on all accused persons based on a submission made by the Sub-Divisional Police Officer, the Supreme Court noted that such an order could not have been passed while dealing with a regular bail application under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). 'We fail to understand how such an endeavour was accepted by the High Court while adjudicating an application for regular bail. It is settled law that while entertaining such an application, the Court must confine itself to considerations such as the nature of the crime, allegations, evidence, period of custody, and possibility of tampering with evidence," the Bench said. The Court also took note of the suspect evidentiary value of narco-analysis tests and made it clear that results of such tests, even if voluntarily undergone, cannot by themselves form the sole basis for conviction. 'A report of a voluntary narco-analysis test with adequate safeguards in place, or information found as a result thereof, cannot form the sole basis of conviction of an accused person," the Court held while answering the second legal issue involved in the matter. Right to Lead Evidence Not a Justification The State had attempted to justify the High Court's direction by arguing that the accused had a right to lead evidence in their defence, and a voluntary narco-test was a part of that right. Rejecting this argument, the Supreme Court categorically held that such a view was untenable in light of the principles laid down in Selvi and the inherently unreliable nature of the technique. 'It cannot be said that undergoing a narco-analysis test is part of the indefeasible right to lead evidence, given its suspect nature," the Court remarked, adding that the Rajasthan High Court's earlier view to the contrary could not be sustained. Assistance by Amicus and Legal Representation Given the complexity of constitutional and procedural issues involved, the Court had appointed Senior Advocate Gaurav Agrawal as Amicus Curiae. The Appellant was represented by AOR Mithilesh Kumar Singh, while the Respondent-State was represented by Additional Standing Counsel Anshul Narayan. The Court rejected a submission by the state government that since modern investigative techniques are the need of the hour, the High Court was correct in accepting the submission that a narco analysis test of all accused persons will be conducted. 'While the need for modern investigative techniques may be true, such investigative techniques cannot be conducted at the cost of constitutional guarantees under Articles 20(3) and 21," the Bench said. Conclusively, the Court set aside the impugned Order dated 9th November 2023 passed by the Patna High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 71293 of 2023 and allowed the appeal. First Published: June 10, 2025, 13:39 IST News india Supreme Court Sets Aside Patna HC Order Allowing Blanket Use Of Narco Test On All Accused
New Indian Express
17 minutes ago
- New Indian Express
Initiate process of electing LS deputy speaker: Kharge writes to PM Modi
NEW DELHI: Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge on Tuesday wrote to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, urging him to initiate the process of electing a deputy Speaker of the Lok Sabha. Keeping the position vacant "does not augur well for India's democratic polity and is also in violation of well-laid-out provisions of the Constitution," the Congress chief said. "Dear Prime Minister, I am writing to bring to your kind attention the highly concerning matter in regard to the prevailing vis-í -vis the vacancy of the deputy speaker in the Lok Sabha. Article 93 of the Constitution of India mandates the election of both the speaker and the deputy speaker of the House of the People. Constitutionally, the deputy speaker is the second-highest presiding officer of the House after the speaker," he said. Kharge said traditionally, the deputy speaker has been elected in the second or third session of a newly constituted Lok Sabha. The procedure for this election mirrors that of the speaker, with the only distinction being that the date for the deputy speaker's election is fixed by the speaker, as per Rule 8(1) of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in Lok Sabha, he noted. In his letter to the PM, Kharge noted that from the first to the sixteenth Lok Sabha, every House has had a deputy speaker. By and large, it has been a well-established convention to appoint the deputy speaker from among the members of the principal opposition party, he said. "However, for the first time in independent India's history, this position has remained vacant for two consecutive Lok Sabha terms. No deputy speaker was elected during the seventeenth Lok Sabha, and this concerning precedent continues in the ongoing eighteenth Lok Sabha," Kharge said. "This does not augur well for India's democratic polity and is also in violation of well laid out provisions of the Constitution," the Congress chief said. "In view of the foregoing and in keeping with the esteemed traditions of the House and the democratic ethos of our Parliament, I request your good self to initiate the process of electing a deputy speaker of Lok Sabha without any further delay," he asserted Kharge's demand comes ahead of Parliament's Monsoon session of Parliament starting from July 21.
