Centre opposes lifetime ban on convicted lawmakers, defends existing law

The Union government has opposed a petition seeking a lifetime ban on convicted lawmakers from contesting elections, arguing before the Supreme Court that existing legal provisions are based on principles of proportionality and reasonability. In an affidavit submitted to the top court, the Union law ministry stated that the current legal framework, which disqualifies convicted legislators for six years after completing their jail term, is designed to maintain deterrence while avoiding undue harshness. The affidavit added that Parliament, as the exclusive lawmaking body, has the authority to decide the duration of disqualification and penalties for convicted representatives.

“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 government’s submission read.

The plea in question was filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay as a public interest litigation (PIL), challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner argued that lawmakers convicted of serious crimes should not be allowed to return to electoral politics, as their continued participation undermines the integrity of the democratic process.

Responding to the PIL, the Centre’s affidavit emphasized that the relief sought by the petitioner would amount to a rewriting of the law, rather than a judicial interpretation. The affidavit stated, “The relief that the petitioner is seeking amounts to rewriting 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.”

A Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta had earlier raised concerns over the apparent conflict of interest in allowing convicted individuals to become lawmakers. The bench had questioned why the disqualification period was limited to six years and whether it sufficiently upheld public trust in governance. The court is expected to continue deliberations on the matter in the coming weeks.