New Delhi: The Centre has opposed a plea in the Supreme Court seeking a lifetime ban on convicted politicians, asserting that such a disqualification falls exclusively within the legislative domain of Parliament.
In an affidavit filed before the court, the government argued that the petitioner’s request amounted to rewriting existing laws or directing Parliament to legislate in a particular manner—something beyond the judiciary’s scope of review.
“The question of whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate or not lies solely within Parliament’s domain,” the affidavit stated. It further noted that limiting the period of disqualification ensures deterrence while avoiding undue harshness.
The Centre contended there was nothing unconstitutional about time-bound penalties, as it is a well-established legal principle that disqualifications can be limited either by duration or severity. It emphasized that the issues raised by the petitioner had broad implications and fell under the legislative policy of Parliament, making judicial intervention inappropriate in this regard.
The plea, filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, calls for a life ban on convicted politicians and seeks the expedited resolution of criminal cases against Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs).
Reiterating that the Supreme Court has consistently held that legislative choices cannot be questioned in court based on their effectiveness, the Centre pointed to Section 8(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which stipulates that disqualification lasts for six years from the date of conviction or, in cases of imprisonment, six years from the date of release.
“The disqualifications under these provisions are determined by parliamentary policy and are limited by time. It would not be appropriate to replace them with the petitioner’s interpretation and impose a lifetime ban,” the affidavit stated.
The Centre further argued that while the court has the authority to declare laws unconstitutional, the relief sought by the petitioner would effectively require replacing the six-year disqualification period with a lifelong ban—something that is solely Parliament’s prerogative.
It stated that lifetime disqualification is the maximum penalty that could be imposed, but Parliament retains discretion over when and how to exercise that power.
“There is a difference between having a power and the necessity of exercising it in every case,” the government argued.
The affidavit defended the current provisions, asserting that they were constitutionally valid, within Parliament’s legislative powers, and did not suffer from excessive delegation. It explained that Parliament, when imposing penalties, adheres to principles of proportionality and reasonability, as seen in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and other penal laws that limit punishments based on the severity of offenses.
The Centre highlighted that numerous penal laws impose restrictions on rights and freedoms, but such measures are typically time-bound. It also pointed out a fundamental distinction between the basis and the effect of disqualification.
“While the basis of disqualification is a conviction, which remains unchanged as long as the conviction stands, the effect of such disqualification is limited to a fixed period. There is nothing inherently unconstitutional in setting a time limit on disqualifications,” the affidavit said.
The government rejected the petitioner’s reliance on Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution, which deal with disqualifications for members of Parliament and state legislatures.
It clarified that Clause (e) of Articles 102 and 191 are enabling provisions that grant Parliament the authority to legislate on disqualifications, under which the Representation of the People Act, 1951, was enacted.
“The Constitution has left it to Parliament to define and regulate disqualifications. It has the power to both determine the grounds for disqualification and set the duration,” the affidavit stated.
The Centre further explained that disqualifications mentioned in these constitutional provisions, such as holding an office of profit, mental unsoundness, insolvency, or loss of Indian citizenship, are not permanent in nature.
The Supreme Court had, on February 10, sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission regarding the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act, which govern disqualifications based on criminal convictions.
With PTI inputs
