Jharkhand News: Three Convicted Politicians Appeal to High Court for Jharkhand Assembly Elections Permission – Here’s What Happened

Ranchi, November 04, 2024: In a significant turn of events for Jharkhand’s 2024 assembly elections, three convicted individuals petitioned the High Court to seek permission to contest despite their legal convictions. Of the three, former legislator Mamta Devi succeeded in securing approval, while ex-minister Bandhu Tirkey withdrew his petition and notorious criminal Aman Sahu was denied the opportunity to stand for election.

Mamta Devi Secures Approval to Contest Elections

Mamta Devi, a former legislator from Ramgarh, managed to gain legal relief from the High Court, which cleared her path to participate in the upcoming assembly elections. Mamta Devi was previously convicted in two cases by a Hazaribagh court. The first conviction, related to an incident under Rajrappa Police Station (case no. 79/2016), resulted in a five-year sentence in December 2022. The second conviction pertained to a separate incident in Gola Thana (case no. 65/2016), where she was sentenced to two years in January 2023.

Mamta Devi’s legal team argued that the convictions should not impede her right to contest in the democratic process, emphasizing her role as a public figure and community leader. Taking these points into account, the High Court temporarily stayed her convictions, allowing her to contest in the assembly elections. Her case has drawn significant attention as it highlights the complexities surrounding political rights for individuals with criminal records.

Bandhu Tirkey Withdraws Petition After Legal Debate

Former Jharkhand Education Minister Bandhu Tirkey, also seeking permission to contest in the assembly elections, decided to withdraw his petition following a detailed legal argument. Bandhu Tirkey, who faced a three-year sentence in March 2022 for possession of disproportionate assets, initially filed an appeal seeking a stay on his sentence.

In court, his attorneys argued that a stay would enable him to participate in the upcoming elections, asserting his right to represent his constituents. However, after nearly two hours of intense legal discussions, Bandhu Tirkey ultimately chose to retract his petition. His decision leaves his political future uncertain, as the withdrawal suggests he may no longer pursue candidacy in the upcoming elections. Bandhu Tirkey’s case stands as a precedent for politicians convicted of corruption-related charges and the limitations they face within the electoral system.

Aman Sahu’s Petition Rejected Due to Criminal Record

The third petitioner, Aman Sahu, a convicted criminal with over 100 cases, including those under the Arms Act, was denied permission to contest in the assembly elections. Aman Sahu, currently serving a six-year sentence for a 2018 conviction in a case registered at the Patratu Police Station (case no. 273/2015), argued that his sentence should be temporarily lifted to enable him to run for office.

The court, however, found his extensive criminal background a serious concern, ultimately denying his plea. The decision underscores the judicial stance on individuals with violent criminal histories seeking political office and reflects a strict approach to upholding law and order in the political landscape.

Judicial Stance on Convicted Politicians and Electoral Rights

This series of High Court rulings highlights the complexities of permitting convicted individuals to participate in democratic processes like elections. While the Indian Constitution provides every citizen with the right to seek public office, those convicted face legal restrictions, particularly in cases involving corruption, criminal conspiracy, and violent crimes.

The differing outcomes in these three cases reveal the High Court’s nuanced approach to balancing individual political rights with public integrity. Mamta Devi’s approval to contest may serve as a unique case study on the conditions under which convicted individuals may gain judicial relief, while Bandhu Tirkey and Aman Sahu’s cases demonstrate the court’s vigilance in handling individuals with more severe or extensive criminal histories.