Centre Opposes Plea in SC for Lifetime Ban on Convicted Politicians

The Union Government has filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court, opposing a plea seeking a permanent ban on politicians convicted in criminal cases from contesting elections. The Centre argued that the decision on the duration of disqualification falls solely within the realm of legislative policy, a matter reserved for Parliament.

The affidavit was submitted in response to a petition filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyaya in 2016, challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 8 of the Act disqualifies individuals convicted of specified offences for six years after serving their sentence, while Section 9 mandates a five-year disqualification for public servants dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State. The petitioner has called for a life-term disqualification, arguing that such a measure would more effectively prevent criminal elements from holding public office.

Opposing the plea, the Union Government asserted that determining the length of disqualification is a legislative function, emphasizing that "the question of whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate is a matter solely within the domain of Parliament." The Centre further argued that the term of disqualification is decided by Parliament, which takes into account the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.

In its affidavit, the government maintained that limiting the duration of disqualification helps strike a balance between deterrence and fairness. "By confining the operation of the penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence is ensured while undue harshness is avoided," the Centre stated.

The Union Government also defended the constitutional soundness of the provisions under challenge, asserting that they do not suffer from excessive delegation of powers or violate the authority granted to Parliament. The Centre contended that the petitioner's demand for a life-long disqualification would effectively amount to rewriting the statute, a request the government described as beyond the scope of judicial review. "It is trite law that the Courts cannot direct Parliament to make a law or to legislate in a particular way," the affidavit read.

Moreover, the Centre highlighted that numerous penal laws impose time-bound disqualifications, arguing that there is nothing inherently unconstitutional in such limitations. "There is nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the effect of penalties by time," the government reiterated.

The petition's plea gained attention recently when a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan sought the Union Government's response on the matter. During a hearing, the bench noted the serious issue of criminalization in politics and remarked that there could be a potential conflict of interest, as politicians are responsible for making the laws governing their own disqualification.