The Supreme Court will deliver its judgment on October 20 in a crucial case questioning if convicted politicians should face a lifetime ban from contesting elections, asking, “Can we trust lawmakers with criminal records?”
The Supreme Court acknowledged a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that calls for the permanent disqualification of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) upon their conviction in criminal cases.
This PIL, submitted by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, also contests the current provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which only disqualify convicted lawmakers for six years after they complete their sentences.
The issue was brought before the Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, who remarked,
“This is a matter of grave concern. Orders have been passed from time to time. The February 10 order requires the matter to be listed before a three-judge bench. Kindly list it on a convenient date.”
The Bench directed that the matter be referred to the Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, specifically mentioning paragraphs 4 and 5 of the February 10, 2025 order issued by a Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta.
The PIL raises significant questions about the criminalization of politics and is set to be finally heard on October 20.
Notably, in February, the Union government opposed the plea for a lifetime ban on convicted politicians from contesting elections, arguing that such a decision falls solely within the “domain of Parliament.”
The legislative department contended that while the court can declare a provision unconstitutional, the current plea seeks to alter the law, which is not within the scope of judicial review.
They stated that the requested relief effectively attempts to replace “six years” with “life-long” in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which they argued is incompatible with judicial review principles.
The government maintained that the appropriateness of a lifetime ban is a matter exclusively for Parliament to decide.
It explained,
“It is not for the petitioner or the respondent to state that the same is appropriate or even state that the same would be excessive. As a matter of law, in imposing any penalty, the Parliament seeks to maintain considering the principles of proportionality and reasonability,”
They also noted that numerous penal laws impose time-limited restrictions on rights and freedoms, ensuring that penalties automatically cease after the specified period.
The government added,
“By confining the operation of the penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence is ensured while undue harshness is avoided,”
Also Read: ‘Should Jailed Politicians Be Allowed to Campaign?’: PIL filed Before Delhi HC
Furthermore, they highlighted that the petition failed to differentiate between the grounds for disqualification and the consequences of such disqualification.
It is important to mention that on February 10, 2025, the Court had instructed the government to respond to Upadhyaya’s plea for a permanent ban on individuals convicted of criminal offenses from running for elections to Parliament and State Assemblies.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
