The Centre has informed the Supreme Court that a lifetime ban on politicians convicted of crimes would be excessively harsh, advocating instead for the existing six-year disqualification period as effective deterrence. In its affidavit, the government emphasized that the duration of disqualification falls within Parliament’s jurisdiction, citing principles of proportionality and reasonableness. The Union government defended the constitutionality of current laws regarding disqualifications, arguing that they allow Parliament to determine the grounds and length of such penalties. The affidavit was a response to a petition by advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya, who seeks a lifetime disqualification for convicted politicians.
New Delhi:
The Centre has informed the Supreme Court that imposing a lifetime ban on politicians convicted in criminal cases would be too severe, and that the existing six-year disqualification period is sufficient to serve as a deterrent.
In an affidavit submitted in response to a petition by advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya, who is advocating for a lifetime disqualification of politicians found guilty in criminal cases and a swifter resolution of criminal proceedings against MPs and MLAs, the Union government stated that the authority to determine the period of disqualification rests exclusively with Parliament.
“Whether a lifetime ban is appropriate is a matter exclusively within Parliament’s jurisdiction,” the Centre noted in the affidavit, specifying that the House decides the disqualification period by taking into account “the principles of proportionality and reasonableness”.
The government highlighted that by confining the penalty to a reasonable duration, it not only ensures deterrence but also mitigates unnecessary severity.
In his petition, Mr. Upadhyaya has contested Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act 1951.
The affidavit stated that according to Section 8 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the disqualification period commences six years from the date of conviction or, in instances of imprisonment, six years from the date of release.
Section 9 indicates that public servants dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State would face a disqualification period of five years from the date of their dismissal. Mr. Upadhyaya has argued that the disqualification in both scenarios should extend for life.
Judicial Review
In its affidavit, the Centre asserted that there is nothing unconstitutional about imposing temporal limits on penalties, as this aligns with established legal principles.
“The issues raised by the petitioner extend far beyond individual cases and are fundamentally part of Parliament’s legislative policy; thus, the scope of judicial review in this matter would be significantly modified,” the government argued.
Regarding judicial review, the Centre contended that while the Supreme Court can declare laws unconstitutional, it cannot provide the lifetime ban relief sought by the petitioner.
‘Constitutionally Sound’
The affidavit maintained that the current laws are “constitutionally sound” and “do not exhibit excessive delegation of power”.
“The Constitution permits Parliament to enact additional laws governing disqualifications as it sees fit. Parliament holds the authority to define both the grounds and the duration of disqualification,” it emphasized, referencing Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution which pertain to disqualifications for membership in the Lok Sabha, Rajya Sabha, and legislative assemblies or councils.
In April 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that MPs and MLAs convicted with a minimum sentence of two years would be immediately disqualified from the House without the opportunity for a three-month appeal, a practice that was in place prior. Following this, the UPA government enacted an ordinance to counter this ruling, which faced strong opposition from Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
Mr. Gandhi described the move as “complete nonsense,” and ultimately, the ordinance was rescinded.
(With inputs from PTI)