The Supreme Court on Tuesday agreed to examine a public interest litigation (PIL) raising the question of whether a politician convicted of an offence and disqualified from voting can still lead a political party or association.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi described the matter, pending since 2017, as an “interesting question” and posted it for detailed hearing on November 19.
The PIL, filed by advocate and BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, seeks a ban on convicted individuals from forming political parties or serving as their office bearers during the period of their disqualification.
“Merely because a person has been disqualified for a statutory right, you can’t ipso facto deprive him of his constitutional right,” Justice Kant remarked, noting that the issue touched upon the balance between statutory disqualification and the fundamental right under Article 19 to form associations.
Upadhyay argued that a person barred from voting should not be in a position to distribute party tickets to candidates, pointing out that existing law even allows such individuals to establish and control political parties from jail. He cited recommendations from various commissions, including the Law Commission, which have suggested restrictions on convicted persons heading political parties.
The bench observed that the question — whether disqualification from voting can extend to restrictions on forming or leading political associations — was “worth consideration” and fell within a legal “grey area”.
Justice Kant posed a hypothetical scenario: “Suppose tomorrow Parliament enacts a law that no person will hold public office beyond the age of 80 years, can you also deprive him from leading a political party?”
The court noted it had “something in mind” regarding the matter but would require a detailed hearing before taking a view.
