The central government has informed the Supreme Court that a lifetime ban on politicians convicted in criminal cases would be excessive, maintaining that the existing six-year disqualification period is sufficient to serve as a deterrent. The Centre filed an affidavit in response to a petition by advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya, which sought a permanent ban on convicted lawmakers and speedy disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs.
The government asserted that determining the period of disqualification falls under Parliament’s jurisdiction and that a balance must be maintained between deterrence and fairness.
Existing Law on Disqualification
Currently, under Section 8(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, convicted politicians face disqualification for:
- Six years from the date of conviction or
- Six years from the date of release if sentenced to imprisonment
Additionally, Section 9 of the Act disqualifies public servants dismissed for corruption or disloyalty for five years from the date of dismissal.
Upadhyaya’s petition challenges these provisions, arguing that disqualification in both cases should be for life, similar to civil servants who face a permanent bar from government service upon dismissal for corruption.
Judicial Review and Parliament’s Authority
The Centre, in its affidavit, emphasized that judicial review does not extend to dictating legislative policy. It argued that:
- Parliament has exclusive authority to decide on disqualification grounds and duration
- A time-bound penalty is constitutionally valid and does not violate legal principles
- The Supreme Court can strike down laws if unconstitutional but cannot grant a lifetime ban as sought by the petitioner
Citing Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution, the government reiterated that Parliament holds the power to set disqualification criteria for Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, legislative assemblies, and legislative councils.
Background and Legal Precedents
In April 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that MPs and MLAs convicted and sentenced to a minimum of two years would be immediately disqualified, eliminating the three-month period previously granted for filing an appeal. At the time, the UPA government attempted to pass an ordinance nullifying this ruling, but it was met with strong opposition from Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
The Supreme Court is yet to deliver a final ruling on Upadhyaya’s petition. The case raises critical questions about political accountability, electoral reforms, and legislative authority in determining the eligibility of public representatives.
Sources By Agencies
