The Supreme Court is gearing up to scrutinize a legislative provision that enables convicted lawmakers to return to the political scene six years after serving their sentences. This comes amidst growing concerns over the disparity in laws that permanently bar government servants convicted of criminal offenses from re-entering public service, while politicians are offered a path back to office after a temporary disqualification.
The issue was brought to the court’s attention through a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, which challenges the constitutionality of sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951. Under Section 8, legislators are disqualified from contesting elections for six years from the date they complete their sentence. Section 9 further stipulates that government officials dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the state are disqualified for five years from their dismissal date.
The court’s reevaluation is driven by the troubling trend of increasing criminalization in politics. Despite rigorous judicial efforts to curb this issue, the prevalence of criminal antecedents among legislators has surged. Recent findings indicate that 46% of the current Lok Sabha members face criminal charges, with a significant number involving severe offenses such as rape and murder.
Historical data reveals a steady rise in the percentage of legislators with criminal records over the last two decades, escalating concerns about the integrity of public service and the effectiveness of current legislative frameworks to stem this tide. The Supreme Court’s previous interventions, including fast-tracking criminal trials for sitting and former MPs and MLAs, have not yielded the desired impact on reducing these figures.
In response to the ongoing challenge, the Supreme Court has issued several orders since 2015 aimed at expediting the legal proceedings against accused legislators. This includes mandates for setting up dedicated fast-track courts and requiring high courts to oversee these trials closely to ensure timely justice.
However, the implementation has been uneven across states, with only a handful establishing dedicated courts for handling cases against MPs and MLAs. Many regions still lack the specialized infrastructure required to manage these trials effectively, contributing to prolonged legal processes and delayed justice.
