The Union Government has filed a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court opposing a plea that seeks to impose a lifetime ban on politicians convicted of criminal offenses. The Centre emphasized that the period of disqualification falls within the exclusive domain of legislative policy and cannot be dictated by judicial intervention.
The affidavit was submitted in response to a petition filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyaya in 2016, challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioner has urged that the disqualification period for convicted politicians should extend for their entire lifetime rather than the current six-year limit.
As per Section 8, any individual convicted of specific offenses is disqualified from contesting elections for six years following their jail term. Meanwhile, Section 9 states that public servants dismissed due to corruption or disloyalty to the State will face a disqualification period of five years from the date of dismissal. The petitioner contends that these limitations should be extended for life.
Read Also:- Supreme Court: Juvenile Conviction Records Cannot Be Disclosed, No Disqualification for Juveniles
Opposing the plea, the Union Government stated:
"The question of whether a lifetime ban is appropriate falls solely within the purview of the Parliament."
The Centre argued that the Parliament determines the duration of disqualification based on principles of proportionality and reasonability. The government further stressed that existing laws ensure deterrence while avoiding excessive punishment.
"By confining the operation of the penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence is ensured while undue harshness is avoided," the Centre stated.
Read Also:- Supreme Court Seeks Assurance on Safe Disposal of Bhopal Gas Tragedy Waste at Pithampur
Additionally, the affidavit clarified that the current provisions are constitutionally sound and do not suffer from excessive delegation. The Centre emphasized that the relief sought by the petitioner would require an amendment to the law, something only the Parliament has the authority to decide.
"The petition essentially seeks to rewrite the law, replacing ‘six years’ with ‘life-long’ in all subsections of Section 8. Such an approach is unknown to judicial review and contradicts established constitutional principles."
The government also pointed out that various penal laws enforce time-bound penalties, reinforcing that limiting disqualification periods is not unconstitutional.
Two weeks ago, a Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan sought the Centre’s response on the issue. During the hearing, the bench acknowledged that criminalization of politics remains a serious concern.
"There is an element of conflict of interest since the politicians themselves are responsible for making these laws," the bench observed.
However, while recognizing the issue, the Centre firmly reiterated that any amendment or revision regarding the duration of disqualification must originate from the legislative process and not judicial intervention.
Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyaya v. Union Of India And Anr., W.P.(C) No. 699/2016
