New Delhi: The Supreme Court, with a 2:1 majority, has suspended the conviction of Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) MP Afzal Ansari under the UP Gangster Act, allowing the restoration of his Lok Sabha membership.Although he can attend House proceedings, he cannot cast his votes or receive perks, LiveLaw reported.The top court further clarified that Ansari shall not be disqualified to contest future election(s) during the pendency of his criminal appeal before the high court. If he is elected, such an election will be subject to the outcome of the First Criminal Appeal, it said.It also asked the Allahabad high court to decide his criminal appeal expeditiously before June 30, 2024, the report said.Ansari was disqualified from the Lok Sabha on May 1, 2023.He was representing the Ghazipur Parliamentary Constituency of Uttar Pradesh.The Gangsters Act case was registered against the Ansari brothers in connection with the murder of BJP MLA Krishnanand Rai in November 2005 and the kidnapping and murder of Vishva Hindu Parishad leader Nand Kishore Rungta in January 1997.The majority judgment said that staying a conviction should occur only under exceptional circumstances, particularly when allowing the conviction to operate would cause irreparable damage and the convict cannot be compensated later if acquitted.“We say so primarily for the reason that the potential ramifications of declining to suspend such a conviction are multifaceted. On the one hand, it would deprive the Appellant’s constituency of its legitimate representation in the Legislature, since a bye-election may not be held given the remainder tenure of the current Lok Sabha. Conversely, it would also impede the Appellant’s ability to represent his constituency based on the allegations, the veracity whereof is to be scrutinised on a re-appraisal of the entire evidence in the First Criminal Appeal pending before the high court,” LiveLaw reported the court as saying.The court also said that the conviction will prevent the appellant from contesting elections for ten years.Regarding the point of ‘moral turpitude’ and the issue of criminalisation of politics, the court said that there were substantial doubts cast on the criminal antecedents of the petitioner.The Court added that it has to go strictly by the law.“Although ‘moral turpitude’ may carry relevance within the context of elected representatives, the courts are bound to construe the law in its extant state and confine their deliberations to those facets explicitly outlined, rather than delving into considerations pertaining to the moral rectitude or ethical character of actions. This is especially true when it is solely motivated by the convicted individual’s status as a political representative, with the aim of disqualification pursuant to the Representation of Peoples Act,” it said.The dissenting judge, Justice Dipankar Datta, said that no preferential treatment can be given to politicians.“The fact that the court is approached by a parliamentarian/legislator, by itself, should not be viewed with such importance and indispensability that his status should tilt the scales in his favour. Would it be fair that a convict, no matter how mighty he is and whatever position he holds, gets a preferential treatment as compared to an under-trial? Should the courts go out of the way to stay the conviction or suspend execution of the order under appeal when no Fundamental or other Constitutional right of the convict would be abrogated if a stay were not granted? To our mind, the answers, as traced through the aforesaid legal and constitutional framework, would unerringly be in the negative.”Justice Datta advocated a higher stand to be applied against a Parliamentarian as allowing a convict to attend the Parliament is derogatory to the dignity of the Parliament. He said, per the report, that none can claim a right to represent an electorate.