The government clarified that under judicial review, the Supreme Court can only declare a law unconstitutional but cannot impose a lifetime ban on convicted politicians, as requested by the petitioner.
The Central government has told the Supreme Court that imposing a lifetime ban on politicians convicted in criminal cases would be too severe, and the existing six-year disqualification period is sufficient to discourage wrongdoing. This response came in an affidavit filed against a petition by advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya, who has urged the court to permanently bar convicted politicians and ensure faster trials for criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs.
The government argued that only Parliament has the authority to decide the duration of disqualification, keeping in mind proportionality and fairness. It emphasized that a fixed period of punishment serves as a deterrent while avoiding excessive penalties.
According to the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a politician convicted of a crime faces a six-year disqualification starting from the date of conviction or, if sentenced to jail, six years after release. Additionally, public servants dismissed for corruption or disloyalty are disqualified for five years.
Upadhyaya, however, believes that such individuals should be barred from politics for life to uphold integrity in public office.
“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, filed by the Union law ministry on Tuesday, said.
What did the affidavit say
The Centre, in its affidavit, stated that setting a time limit on penalties is legally justified and follows well-established legal principles. It argued that the issues raised by the petitioner have broad implications and fall under Parliament’s authority, meaning the scope of judicial review is limited in this matter.
The government clarified that under judicial review, the Supreme Court can only declare a law unconstitutional but cannot impose a lifetime ban on convicted politicians, as requested by the petitioner.
Laws are constitutionally valid
The affidavit emphasized that the current laws are legally sound and do not involve excessive delegation of power. It highlighted that the Constitution grants Parliament the authority to decide both the reasons for disqualification and how long it should last. Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution provide Parliament with the power to frame laws regarding the disqualification of MPs, MLAs, and members of legislative councils.
In April 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that MPs and MLAs sentenced to at least two years in prison would be immediately disqualified without the previous three-month appeal window. In response, the then-UPA government attempted to overturn this decision through an ordinance. However, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi strongly criticized it, calling it “complete nonsense,” leading to the ordinance being withdrawn.
