The Supreme Court of India, on Tuesday, directed the Election Commission of India (ECI) to provide a comprehensive account of instances where it has either removed or reduced the disqualification period for politicians convicted in criminal cases. This directive was issued by a bench consisting of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan, who have given the ECI a two-week deadline to furnish the details, as stipulated under Section 11 of the Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951.
Under the current provisions of the RPA, individuals convicted in criminal cases and sentenced to two or more years of imprisonment face disqualification from electoral politics from the date of conviction and extending up to six years post-release. This regulation applies irrespective of whether the convicted person is out on bail or has an appeal pending.
However, the ECI holds the authority to modify or annul these disqualification periods, provided it documents the reasons for such decisions. The requirement to provide this information came to light during the proceedings of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) initiated in 2016 by Ashwini Upadhyay, which advocates for a lifetime ban on convicted politicians and the swift resolution of criminal cases involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs).
Justice Datta also indicated that a related PIL by NGO Lok Prahari is under consideration by another bench, and he has recommended to the Chief Justice of India, Sanjiv Khanna, that these matters be consolidated and expedited.
During the session, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, serving as amicus curiae, highlighted the lack of accessible information on cases where the ECI has reduced or removed disqualifications. This gap in data prompted the court’s request for detailed records.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner, emphasized the necessity of curbing the criminalization of politics and mentioned ongoing discussions around barring individuals with pending charges from participating in electoral politics.
On the other hand, the ECI assured the court of its willingness to disclose the instances of exercised leniency under Section 11 of the RPA. The Centre, meanwhile, argued against the PIL, stating that imposing a lifetime ban on convicted politicians is a legislative matter and not within the judicial purview. It also defended the constitutional validity of limiting penalties by time or severity, which is presently being challenged in the Supreme Court concerning Sections 8 and 9 of the RPA.
