NEW DELHI: The Cabinet has cleared an ordinance to protect elected MPs and MLAs from immediate disqualification on conviction for two years for any offence, a step Law Minister Kapil Sibal said was not intended to protect individuals but aimed more at letting sitting lawmakers complete the rest of their terms.“No one is saving anybody. It is not intended to save individuals,” Sibal said, rebutting suggestion the ordinance was aimed at saving some highprofile politicians whose fates hang in the balance because of a July 10 order of the Supreme Court which ruled that convicted lawmakers could be removed from their posts forthwith.The top court had scrapped a provision in the Representation of People Act that offered convicted politicians a three-month window to appeal their convictions and keep their seats while those appeals were pending.The government tried to pass a law in the recently concluded monsoon session of Parliament to amend the SC order, but failed and is therefore trying to do so through an ordinance. The Supreme Court’s decision has been hailed by many as path-breaking but also questioned by some as impractical and unjust.Sibal said the ordinance was only intended to protect sitting MLAs and MPs until Parliament completed the exercise of bringing in a law to protect them. The move came days after Congress Rajya Sabha MP and its working committee member Rashid Masood was convicted in a corruption case for fraudulently nominating undeserving candidates to MBBS seats in Tripura in medical colleges across the country.His sentence is expected to be handed out on October 1. A day before that, a CBI court is expected to deliver a verdict in one of the fodder scam cases pending against RJD supremo Lalu Prasad, a UPA constituent whose fate would be sealed by the verdict.The main opposition party BJP crticised the move to go in for an ordinance. “There is some other motive in this hurry for an ordinance. Why should there be an executive order. What is the urgency?” asked BJP spokeswoman Nirmala Sitharaman.Sibal insisted that the move was not intended to save individuals, saying that the ordinance had “accepted” and even made the SC ruling on the issue “stricter”.