Daijiworld Media Network – New Delhi
New Delhi, Mar 4: The Supreme Court has directed the Election Commission (EC) to provide details of instances where it has exercised its discretionary power to remove or reduce the period of disqualification for convicted politicians. The order comes amid a broader debate on barring lawmakers with criminal records from contesting elections.
As per Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, individuals convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more are disqualified from contesting elections from the date of conviction until six years after their release. However, Section 11 of the RPA grants the Election Commission the authority to remove or reduce this disqualification period under specific conditions.
During the hearing of a 2016 PIL advocating for a lifetime ban on convicted politicians and faster trials for lawmakers facing criminal cases, a bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta directed the EC to furnish details of cases where it had invoked Section 11. The court has given the EC two weeks to submit the information, following which petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay and other parties can file their rejoinders within another two weeks.
Given that another PIL filed by Lok Prahari on the same issue is pending before a separate bench, Justice Datta referred Upadhyay’s petition to Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna for consolidation and expedited hearing before a single bench.
Senior advocate and amicus curiae Vijay Hansaria emphasized that there is no publicly available record of cases where the EC has reduced the disqualification period for convicted politicians. This, he argued, makes it essential for the court to review such instances before making a judgment.
Meanwhile, senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner, argued that even individuals who are charge-sheeted should be barred from contesting elections. The Election Commission’s counsel assured the court that the required information would be provided but clarified that Section 11 of the RPA itself was not under legal challenge.
The central government, on the other hand, has opposed the PIL seeking a lifetime ban on convicted politicians, arguing that such decisions fall under the legislative purview of Parliament. The Centre asserted that any move to impose a permanent disqualification should be determined through legislative action, not judicial intervention.
The Supreme Court has previously expressed grave concerns about the increasing criminalization of politics. During a February 10 hearing, the bench questioned how convicted individuals could be allowed to return to Parliament or state assemblies once their disqualification period ends. The court underscored the apparent conflict of interest, as convicted politicians are involved in lawmaking.
The PIL also challenges the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the RPA, which impose only a temporary disqualification on convicted lawmakers. The Supreme Court has sought the opinion of Attorney General R. Venkataramani on this contentious issue.
With the Election Commission now tasked with providing crucial data, the case is set to further shape the debate on political accountability and electoral reforms in India.