Centre Opposes Plea For Lifetime Ban On Convicted Politicians In SC

Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay had filed a PIL seeking a life-ban on convicted politicians.

New Delhi:The Centre has opposed in the Supreme Court a plea for life-ban on convicted politicians, saying the issue whether lifetime ban would be appropriate or not falls within the domain of Parliament.

The Centre, in an affidavit in the apex court, stressed that the provisions under the Representation of People Act, are constitutionally sound, do not suffer from the vice of excess delegation and are "intra vires the powers of Parliament". “All laws duly passed by the Legislature are entitled to the presumption of constitutionality”, said the affidavit.

The response by the Centre came on a direction by the apex court in a PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who sought a life-ban on convicted politicians aside from the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the country.

The Centre said the prayer of the petitioner amounts to re-writing of the statute or directing the Parliament to frame a law in a particular manner which is wholly beyond the powers of judicial review. “It is trite law that the courts cannot direct Parliament to make a law or to legislate in a particular way”, said the affidavit.

The Centre said the question whether a life-time ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the Parliament. It added that by confining the operation of penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence was ensured while undue harshness was avoided.

The Centre said the petitioner has failed to appreciate in full the decision rendered by the apex court in Manoj Narula Vs Union of India (2014). “While the court in that case had rightly expressed apprehensions about criminality in politics, it had also recognised that judicial restraint must be exercised and the court could not prescribe qualification or disqualification for election”, said the affidavit.

The affidavit stressed that clause (e) of Article 102 and Article 191 of the Constitution are enabling provisions that confer on Parliament the power to make laws governing disqualification.

"A lifetime disqualification is the maximum that can be imposed under the provisions and to impose such a disqualification is certainly within the power of Parliament. However, it is one thing to say that a power exists and another to say that it must necessarily be exercised in every case," said the affidavit.

The central government said that a similar plea made by NGO Lok Prahari is pending consideration before the top court wherein the government has filed an affidavit opposing it in November, 2023.

The Centre stressed that the petitioner here failed to make the crucial distinction between basis and effect of disqualification.

"It is true that the basis of disqualification is conviction for an offence and that this basis remains unchanged so long as the conviction stands. The effect of such conviction lasts for a fixed period of time. Therefore, there is nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the effect of penalties by time," the government said.

The affidavit said under Section 8 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the period of disqualification was six years from the date of conviction or in case of imprisonment, six years from the date of release.