Govt opposes lifetime ban on convicted lawmakers, defends 6-year period

In this matter, the Supreme Court observed that there is an "apparent conflict of interest" in allowing a law-breaker to be a lawmaker

The central government on Tuesday opposed a plea seeking a lifetime ban on convicted lawmakers from contesting elections.

 

According to a report by Hindustan Times, before the Supreme Court, the Union government asserted that there is “nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the effect of penalties by time” to ensure deterrence while avoiding “undue harshness”.

 

In 2016, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay filed a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) to challenge the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and seek a lifetime ban on convicted legislators. Currently, the restriction period for convicted lawmakers is six years.   Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act, 1951 presently bars legislators of a state Assembly or Parliament from running in elections for six years after finishing their sentence. This applies to certain listed crimes and any conviction with a jail term of two or more years.

 

 

In this regard, this month, on February 10, a Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta asked the union government the rationale behind restricting the disqualification period to six years for convicted lawmakers.

 

The top court observed that there is an “apparent conflict of interest” in allowing a law-breaker to be a lawmaker. 

 

In response to this, the Union Law Ministry on Tuesday filed an affidavit in SC. “The disqualifications made under the impugned sections are limited by time as a matter of parliamentary policy, and it would not be appropriate to substitute the Petitioner’s understanding of the issue and impose a lifetime ban,” the affidavit stated.

 

“The relief that the petitioner is seeking amounts to re-writing of the provision as it effectively seeks to read ‘life-long’ instead of ‘six years’ in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,” it further added. 

 

Section 8 of the Act bars convicted politicians from running in elections for six years after finishing their sentence. This applies to certain listed crimes and any conviction with a jail term of two or more years.

 

Section 9 of the Act prevents people removed from government jobs due to corruption or disloyalty to the country from contesting elections for five years after their dismissal.

 

The government’s statement stressed that while courts can cancel laws if they are unconstitutional, they cannot tell Parliament how to make or change laws.

 

The affidavit stated, “It is trite law that the Courts cannot direct Parliament to make a law or to legislate in a particular way,” referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Madras Bar Association Vs Union of India (2021), which clarified that “the courts cannot direct the legislature to frame or enact a law in a particular manner.”

 

The government also cited the State of Himachal Pradesh vs Satpal Saini (2017) case, which emphasised that making policies is the job of the executive and legislature, and courts can only step in if a policy goes against the Constitution. The affidavit stressed that the decision on whether to impose a lifetime ban is entirely up to Parliament.