Plea in SC challenging constitutional validity of provision in electoral law

Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has filed a plea before the Apex Court challenging the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of Representation of the People Act, 1951, (RPA) which stipulates that a legislator shall be disqualified if convicted & imprisoned for more than 2 years.

New Delhi: A plea was filed on Wednesday in the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of a provision in the electoral law which stipulates that a lawmaker shall stand disqualified if convicted for more than two years, saying it is "arbitrary" as public servants are terminated from their services if held guilty.

The plea filed by BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay contended that the section Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is "void and unconstitutional" as it shields the criminal law-maker from disqualification, while public servant if convicted is penalised by ensuring his removal, dismissal or compulsory retirement.

"Public servants are terminated from their services if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment even for two days. But, Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act protects the legislators from disqualification... hence, it is manifestly arbitrary, irrational and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution," the plea said.

"Presently 159 (29 per cent) MPs have declared serious criminal cases including cases related to rape, murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, crimes against women etc," the plea said.

It said out of 542 elected candidates analysed after 2014 Lok Sabha elections, 112 (21 per cent) had declared serious criminal cases against themselves.

While out of 543 successful candidates analysed after 2009 Lok Sabha election, 76 (14 per cent) had declared serious criminal cases against themselves. "So, there is an increase of 109 per cent in the number of returned candidates with declared serious criminal cases since 2009," the plea said.

"Therefore, through an unreasonable artifice, Section 8(3) perpetuates a malady which amounts to a subversion of democracy, which is part of the basic structure; furthermore, the provision of Section 8(3) is antithetical to the rule of law which is at the core of Article 14," it added.