The Centre opposed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking a lifetime ban on convicted individuals from contesting elections. The government argued that the authority to impose such a restriction rests with Parliament. It maintained that any change in electoral disqualifications should be decided through legislative processes. The Supreme Court’s decision on the matter could have significant political and legal implications.
New Delhi: The Union of India opposed a petition in the Supreme Court that seeks a lifetime ban on individuals convicted of criminal offenses from contesting elections to the Parliament and State assemblies.
In an affidavit submitted to the court, the government argued that the authority to impose such a ban rests with Parliament, not the judiciary. It stated that Parliament would make decisions based on the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.
The affidavit emphasized,
“The question of whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate is solely within the domain of Parliament. It is not for the petitioner to claim that such a ban is suitable or excessive.”
Furthermore, it noted that,
“In imposing any penalty, Parliament aims to consider the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.”
The Centre’s response addressed the petition by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, which challenges the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of People Act.
Section 8 prohibits convicted politicians from contesting elections for six years after serving their sentence. This applies to specific listed crimes and any conviction resulting in a jail term of two years or more. Section 9 bars individuals dismissed from government positions due to corruption or disloyalty to the country from running for elections for five years following their dismissal.
On February 10, a Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta inquired about the rationale behind the six-year disqualification period for convicted lawmakers.
The court noted the “apparent conflict of interest” in permitting a law-breaker to serve as a lawmaker.
Also Read: ‘Should Jailed Politicians Be Allowed to Campaign?’: PIL filed Before Delhi HC
In response, the Central government defended its position, arguing that a lifetime ban may not be appropriate because legal penalties are generally limited in duration or severity. For example, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, stipulates specific terms of imprisonment or fines that correlate with the severity of the offense.
The affidavit states,
“Post serving such penalty, a person is free to rejoin society and enjoy all other rights available to any individual.”
It further explains that many penal laws impose time-limited restrictions on rights and freedoms, which automatically cease after the prescribed period.
Thus, the argument that disqualifications under Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution are permanent is deemed “untenable.”
The affidavit contends,
“The grounds for disqualification given in the above articles Holding of an office of profit, unsoundness of mind, insolvency, and not being a citizen of India are not permanent disqualifications. In all these cases, disqualification is tied to the existence of a supervening circumstance.”
It asserts that disqualification ends once the relevant circumstances change, such as when a person ceases to hold an office of profit or overcomes insolvency.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India [Writ Petition (C) No. 699 of 2016]