Opposing petitions seeking a lifetime ban on convicted politicians from contesting elections, the Union government has submitted a counter-affidavit to the Supreme Court stating there is “nothing inherently unconstitutional” in limiting their disqualification to six years.
The affidavit is filed in response to a petition filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyaya in 2016 challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
As per Section 8, a person who has been sentenced for the specified offenses shall be disqualified for six years after serving the jail term. As per Section 9, public servants who have been dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State shall be disqualified for five years from the date of such dismissal.
The petitioner demanded that the disqualification should be for a life term.
Earlier, a bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan had sought the response of the Union Government on the issue.
Opposing the plea, the Union argued that “the question whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the parliament,” as the term of disqualification is determined by the Parliament “considering the principles of proportionality and reasonability.”
“By confining the operation of the penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence is ensured while undue harshness is avoided,” they added.
The Union observed that the provisions under challenge are “constitutionally sound” and “do not suffer from the vice of excess delegation and are intra vires the powers of Parliament”.
Union noted that the petitioner’s request amounts to a re-writing of the provision by effectively replacing “six years” with “life-long” in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and is therefore not subject to judicial review or any canon of constitutional law.
The Union also pointed out that various penal laws limit the period of disqualification by time. “There is nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the effect of penalties by time,” the Union said.
During the hearing, the Supreme Court bench remarked that the criminalization of politics was a serious issue and observed that there was an element of conflict of interest as the politicians themselves were making the laws.
