The Union government has opposed a lifetime ban on politicians convicted in criminal cases, asserting that the current six-year disqualification period is adequate to serve as a deterrent. In an affidavit filed before the Supreme Court, the Centre argued that determining the length of disqualification falls exclusively within the domain of Parliament.
The affidavit was filed in response to a petition by advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya, who sought a lifetime ban on convicted politicians and the expedited resolution of criminal cases involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs).
Parliament’s Discretion on Disqualification
The Centre maintained that Parliament is best suited to decide the period of disqualification based on “principles of proportionality and reasonability.” It emphasized that a lifetime ban would be overly harsh and that limiting the penalty ensures deterrence without imposing undue severity.
“The question of whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate or not is solely within the domain of Parliament,” the affidavit stated. “By limiting the penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence is ensured while undue harshness is avoided.”
Currently, under Section 8(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a politician convicted of a criminal offense faces disqualification for six years from the date of conviction. If sentenced to imprisonment, the disqualification period extends to six years post-release. Section 9 further disqualifies public servants dismissed for corruption or disloyalty for five years from the date of dismissal.
ALSO READ: Govt working on universal pension scheme for all citizens: Report
Upadhyaya’s petition challenges both provisions, advocating for lifetime disqualification in these cases.
Judicial Review and Constitutional Validity
The Centre also contended that judicial review does not extend to determining disqualification periods, stating that the Supreme Court’s role is limited to assessing constitutionality rather than prescribing specific bans.
“The issues raised by the petitioner have wide-ranging ramifications and fall within the legislative policy of Parliament. The contours of judicial review do not extend to granting the relief sought,” the affidavit stated.
Reaffirming the constitutional validity of the existing laws, the Centre emphasized that Parliament has the authority to define both the grounds and duration of disqualification, citing Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution, which outline disqualifications for members of Parliament and state legislatures.
Historical Precedent: 2013 SC Ruling and Rahul Gandhi’s Opposition
The Supreme Court had ruled in April 2013 that MPs and MLAs sentenced to a minimum of two years in prison would be immediately disqualified, eliminating the earlier provision that granted them three months to appeal.
ALSO READ: Delhi to Jaipur in less than half an hour? IIT Madras develops India’s first Hyperloop test track with support from railways
The ruling prompted the then-United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government to introduce an ordinance seeking to overturn the decision. However, strong opposition from within the Congress party—led by Rahul Gandhi, who dismissed the move as “complete nonsense”—forced the government to withdraw the ordinance.
Implications and Political Debate
The Centre’s stand against a lifetime ban has sparked fresh debate on political accountability and electoral reforms. While the government argues that existing laws strike a balance between punishment and fairness, advocates for stricter measures insist that permanently barring convicted politicians is necessary to cleanse the political system of criminal influence.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter is expected to have far-reaching consequences for electoral law and governance in India.
