Centre Opposes Plea on Life-time Ban For Convicted Lawmakers, says ‘Matter Within Parliament’s Domain’

New Delhi: The subject of lifetime disqualification for convicted politicians comes solely within the domain of Parliament, Centre informed the Supreme Court in an affidavit.

While responding to the plea, Centre said prayer seeks to rewrite the statute or direct Parliament to frame a law in a particular manner that was wholly “beyond the powers of judicial review”.

"The question whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the parliament," the affidavit submitted by Centre said.

By confining the operation of penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence was ensured while undue harshness was avoided, it added.

Also Read: Supreme Court To Hear Pleas Against New Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar's Appointment

Centre was responding to the petition in the top court filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The plea sought a life ban on convicted politicians aside from the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the country.

In its affidavit, the Centre highlighted that the Supreme Court had consistently held that the legislative choice over one option or the other couldn't be questioned in courts over its efficacy or otherwise.

Legal Provisions on Disqualification

Representation of the People Act, 1951 has laid down provisions for disqualifying convicted individuals from contesting elections. 

As per Section 8(3), a person sentenced to imprisonment for at least two years is disqualified from contesting elections during the incarceration period and for six years post-release. 

As per Section 8(1), it stipulates that individuals convicted under laws related to heinous crimes, such as rape, the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act for untouchability, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), and the Prevention of Corruption Act, will be disqualified regardless of the sentence duration and for six years beyond their release.

The Centre said as a matter of judicial review, the court could declare the provisions to be unconstitutional; however, the relief sought by the petitioner effectively sought to read "life-long" instead of "six years" in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Act.