Centre Opposes Lifetime Election Ban for Convicted Politicians
The Union Government has submitted a counter-affidavit to the Supreme Court, opposing a petition that seeks to impose a lifetime ban on politicians convicted of criminal offenses from contesting elections. The government contends that determining the duration of electoral disqualification falls exclusively within the legislative domain and should be decided by Parliament.
Current Legal Framework for Disqualification
Under the existing provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, specifically Sections 8 and 9, individuals convicted of specified offenses face disqualification from electoral participation for a period of six years following the completion of their sentence. Additionally, public servants dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the state are disqualified for five years from the date of dismissal. The petitioner, advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya, challenges these sections, advocating for a lifetime ban on convicted politicians.
Government’s Stance on Legislative Authority
In its affidavit, the Centre emphasizes that the question of whether a lifetime ban is appropriate resides solely within Parliament’s jurisdiction. The government asserts that Parliament, by setting specific disqualification periods, balances deterrence with proportionality and reasonableness. The affidavit states, “By confining the operation of the penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence is ensured while undue harshness is avoided.”
Constitutionality of Existing Provisions
The Centre maintains that the current disqualification provisions are constitutionally sound and do not suffer from excessive delegation of power. The government argues that the petitioner’s request effectively seeks to rewrite the statute by replacing the six-year disqualification period with a lifetime ban, a move beyond the scope of judicial review. The affidavit contends, “The prayer of the Petitioner amounts to re-writing of the statute or directing the Parliament to frame a law in a particular manner which is wholly beyond the powers of judicial review.”
Judicial Precedents and Legislative Intent
The government’s submission references judicial precedents affirming that courts cannot compel Parliament to legislate in a specific manner. The Centre underscores that the existing disqualification durations were established after careful consideration of proportionality and the intent to balance deterrence with fairness. The affidavit concludes that the provisions will not become unconstitutional merely because the petitioner perceives them as inadequate.
Implications for Electoral Reforms
This legal debate highlights the ongoing discourse on electoral reforms and the criminalization of politics in India. While the judiciary plays a crucial role in interpreting laws, the Centre’s stance reinforces the principle of separation of powers, suggesting that any modifications to disqualification criteria for elected representatives should emerge through legislative processes rather than judicial mandates.
As the Supreme Court deliberates on this matter, its decision could have significant ramifications for the political landscape, potentially influencing the standards of probity and accountability among public officials.
