Lifetime Ban on Convicted Politicians

February 27, 2025

The ongoing legal discourse surrounding the disqualification of convicted politicians in India has gained momentum. The central government recently defended the six-year disqualification period established by the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This response was prompted by a petition challenging the constitutionality of the Act’s provisions regarding electoral disqualification. The government asserts that the current laws are constitutionally valid and that the question of a lifetime ban rests solely with Parliament.

Background of the Representation of the People Act

The Representation of the People Act, 1951, governs the conduct of elections in India.
It includes provisions for disqualifying individuals convicted of certain offences.
Section 8 disqualifies individuals sentenced to imprisonment for specific offences for six years after their release.
Section 9 addresses disqualification for public servants dismissed for corruption or disloyalty, with a five-year ban.

Legal Arguments for Six-Year Disqualification

The central government argues that limiting disqualification to six years is not unconstitutional.
It states that many penal laws impose time-bound penalties.
This approach ensures deterrence without excessive harshness.
The government contends that Parliament has the authority to determine the appropriate duration of disqualification.

The Petitioner’s Stance

Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay filed a petition advocating for a lifetime disqualification for convicted politicians. The petitioner argues that the current provisions violate constitutional principles. They assert that allowing convicted politicians to contest elections undermines public trust in the electoral process.

The Role of Parliament

The government maintains that decisions regarding disqualification duration are within Parliament’s legislative domain. It emphasises that the judiciary should not dictate legislative choices. The government argues that imposing a lifetime ban would amount to rewriting existing laws, which is beyond judicial authority.

Judicial Review and Legislative Policy

The government acknowledges the judiciary’s power to review laws but argues that this should not lead to a redefinition of legislative intent. It insists that the courts cannot compel Parliament to legislate in a specific manner. The government reiterates that legislative choices should not be questioned based on efficacy or public sentiment.

Constitutional Implications

The debate raises constitutional questions. The balance between legislative authority and judicial review is at stake. The government argues that the provisions of the Act are constitutionally sound and reflect a considered legislative policy.

« Previous Post Next Post »