In a significant legal showdown, the Union government has firmly opposed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking to impose a lifetime ban on convicted lawmakers from contesting elections. The government contends that such a disqualification, extending beyond the current six-year period after serving prison sentences, would be “unduly harsh” and not in line with constitutional principles.
Filed by the Union law ministry, the affidavit addresses the challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The legislation currently disqualifies convicted legislators for six years following their incarceration, covering a range of offenses with a minimum sentence of two years. The Centre argues that the existing provisions strike a balance between deterrence and proportionality, echoing the notion that penalties should not be excessively punitive.
This stance came in response to a public interest litigation initiated by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay in 2016, which called into question the adequacy of the six-year disqualification period in preventing the criminalization of politics. The Supreme Court, under Justice Dipankar Datta, has expressed concerns about the “conflict of interest” in allowing convicted criminals to resume legislative roles after the set period.
The government’s affidavit stresses that the judiciary cannot compel Parliament to amend laws, referencing key precedents that establish the separation of powers between the legislative body and the courts. This includes the landmark Supreme Court decision in Madras Bar Association vs Union of India, which reaffirmed that courts could not direct legislative actions.
Furthermore, the affidavit dismisses the petitioner’s reliance on constitutional articles that outline the disqualification of legislators, asserting that these do not support the case for a lifetime ban. It emphasizes that other disqualifications, such as holding an office of profit or unsoundness of mind, are not permanent and cease once the conditions are no longer met.
The matter is set to escalate with the next hearing scheduled for March 4, where Attorney General R Venkataramani is expected to further articulate the government’s position. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has also sought the Election Commission’s input on this pressing issue, highlighting the broader concerns about the pervasive criminal elements within Indian politics.
