The Delhi High Court last week refused to suspend the conviction of Bihar BJP MLA Raju Kumar Singh in a case arising from the death of a woman at a New Year’s Eve party in Delhi in 2018.Singh was convicted and sentenced to four years’ imprisonment by Rouse Avenue Court in July. Although the High Court suspended his sentence, it declined to stay the conviction itself. It said, “To make things worse, he does not have clean antecedents. There is a long list of cases in which he is found to be involved in. Undoubtedly, in several such cases, he has already been acquitted but it is not a case where he has a clean slate.”More than three months after the sentencing, the Bihar Assembly has not declared his seat vacant yet. CPI(ML)L general secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya has questioned the delay, pointing to the assembly’s decision to remove his party’s MLA Manoj Manzil after his conviction in 2024.The delay raises two questions – does the speaker have any discretion, and can a conviction be put on hold during an appeal? We explain.Article 191 lists the grounds for disqualification from sitting in a state legislature, such as holding an office of profit, being of unsound mind, being an undischarged insolvent, or not being a citizen.Article 191(1)(e) disqualifies a person from membership of the state legislature “if he is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.”Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, Section 8(3) applies to any person who is “convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years.” It states that such a person “shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified” for six years after release. A conviction is the finding of guilt, and a sentence is a punishment that follows.Story continues below this adSingh was sentenced to four years and a month after his conviction was pronounced.Article 190 states several ways a seat is lost, including sitting in both houses of Parliament or two states, staying away from all meetings for sixty days without permission, or resigning, which takes effect only when the Speaker accepts it.Also Read | Legislative privileges vs free speech: The question before Supreme CourtArticle 190(3) (a) states that if a member is subjected to disqualification, his seat “shall thereupon become vacant.”Section 151A of the Act requires a by-election within six months “from the date of the occurrence of the vacancy,” with exceptions. If the seat falls vacant by operation of law, the six months may run from disqualification and not from the notification.Story continues below this adArticle 193 sets a penalty of five hundred rupees for each day on which a person sits and votes “when he knows that he is not qualified or that he is disqualified”When does a seat fall vacant?Until 2013, Section 8(4) of the Act protected a convicted MLA or MP from losing their seat immediately. They could continue in office for three months, and if they filed an appeal within that period, remain a legislator until the appeal was decided.The Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in Lily Thomas v UOI changed that. The court held that Parliament could prescribe the grounds for disqualifying a person but could not postpone the constitutional consequence. Once a member is disqualified, the court said “his seat automatically falls vacant” under Article 101(3)(a) and 190(3)(a). Section 8(4) was “ultra vires the Constitution.”The Constitution does provide a route for disputes. Article 192(1) provides that if a question arises as to whether a member has incurred a disqualification under Article 191(1), the matter goes to the Governor, who acts on the Election Commission’s opinion. Neither Article 190 nor 192 names the Speaker. The Speaker decides disqualification only in defection cases under the Tenth Schedule.Story continues below this adWhen a legislator is convicted and the conviction is not disputed, the Commission told the Supreme Court in Lok Prahari v ECI (2018) that it does not need to refer the matter to the Governor. It relied on a 1998 Supreme Court ruling in P. V. Narasimha Rao, which concerned MPs. That judgment held that where a disqualification is not disputed, the member “ceases to be a member on the date when he incurred the disqualification.” The case concerned the MPs, but the scheme for state legislators under Article 192 is materially similar. The Lok Prahari judgment only records this as the commission’s submission, not as a holding.Also Read | Can a police confession justify NSA detention? What Supreme Court said in Sambhal caseIn practice, the legislature secretariat issues a notification recording the vacancy. The Lok Sabha Secretariat notified Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification a day after he was convicted in March 2023.Can convictions be put on hold?Section 430 of the BNSS lets an appellate court suspend the execution of a sentence while an appeal is pending. In Ravi Kant S Patil v Sarvabhouma S Bagali, the Supreme Court held that when a sentence is stayed, “the conviction continues to operate.” Only a stay of the conviction removes the disqualification. The bench in Lok Prahari said that once conviction is stayed, the disqualification “cannot take or remain in effect.”When Rahul Gandhi was convicted of criminal defamation in 2023, the Supreme Court said “we are of the considered view that the ramifications of sub-section (3) of Section 8 of the Act are wide-ranging. They not only affect the right of the appellant to continue in public life but also affect the right of the electorate, who have elected him, to represent their constituency.” It stayed the conviction pending his appeal.