The Union of India has opposed the petition before the Supreme Court seeking imposition of lifetime ban on those convicted of criminal offences from contesting elections to the parliament and State assemblies..In an affidavit filed before the top court, the government has said that discretion to impose such ban lies with the parliament and not judiciary and the parliament would take such a call based on the principles of proportionality and reasonability.The question whether a life time ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the parliament and it is not for the petitioner "to state that the same is appropriate or even state that the same would be excessive." "As a matter of law, in imposing any penalty, the parliament seeks to maintain considering the principles of proportionality and reasonability," reads the affidavit. .The reply by the Centre came in response to the plea by BJP leader advocate Ashwini Upadhyay challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of People Act.Section 8 of the Act bars convicted politicians from running in elections for six years after completing their sentence. This applies to certain listed crimes and any conviction with a jail term of two or more years.Section 9 of the Act prevents people removed from government jobs due to corruption or disloyalty to the country, from contesting elections for five years after their dismissal.On February 10, a Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta had sought to know from the Union government about the rationale behind restricting the disqualification period to six years for convicted lawmakers.The top court had observed that there is an “apparent conflict of interest” in allowing a law-breaker to be a lawmaker. .However, the Central government has justified why lifetime ban may not be the appropriate course of action since penalties under law are limited either by time or by quantum. For instance, the entirety of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or penal law provides for imprisonment or fines up to certain limits and the rationale behind the same is that the punitive measures would co-relate with the gravity of the offence. "Post serving of such penalty, a person is free to rejoin the society and enjoy all other rights available to any individual....there are numerous penal laws which provide for restrictions to be imposed on the exercise of rights and freedoms, which restrictions are in most cases time-limited. At the end of the prescribed time, the restrictions imposed by the penalty cease to operate automatically," the affidavit states..Hence, the contention that the disqualifications under Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution are permanent is "untenable", it has been contended. "The grounds for disqualification given in the above articles are-Holding of an office of profit, unsoundness of mind, insolvency and not being a citizen of India. It is submitted that these are not permanent disqualifications. In all these cases, disqualification is tied to the existence of a supervening circumstance. It would last only so long as the supervening circumstances last i.e., disqualification would cease once the holder of office of profit demits that office, where the insolvent person comes out of insolvency, where the person who was unsound of mind is cured of such unsoundness and where the non-citizen becomes an Indian citizen," the affidavit argues.
The Union of India has opposed the petition before the Supreme Court seeking imposition of lifetime ban on those convicted of criminal offences from contesting elections to the parliament and State assemblies..In an affidavit filed before the top court, the government has said that discretion to impose such ban lies with the parliament and not judiciary and the parliament would take such a call based on the principles of proportionality and reasonability.The question whether a life time ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the parliament and it is not for the petitioner "to state that the same is appropriate or even state that the same would be excessive." "As a matter of law, in imposing any penalty, the parliament seeks to maintain considering the principles of proportionality and reasonability," reads the affidavit. .The reply by the Centre came in response to the plea by BJP leader advocate Ashwini Upadhyay challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of People Act.Section 8 of the Act bars convicted politicians from running in elections for six years after completing their sentence. This applies to certain listed crimes and any conviction with a jail term of two or more years.Section 9 of the Act prevents people removed from government jobs due to corruption or disloyalty to the country, from contesting elections for five years after their dismissal.On February 10, a Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta had sought to know from the Union government about the rationale behind restricting the disqualification period to six years for convicted lawmakers.The top court had observed that there is an “apparent conflict of interest” in allowing a law-breaker to be a lawmaker. .However, the Central government has justified why lifetime ban may not be the appropriate course of action since penalties under law are limited either by time or by quantum. For instance, the entirety of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 or penal law provides for imprisonment or fines up to certain limits and the rationale behind the same is that the punitive measures would co-relate with the gravity of the offence. "Post serving of such penalty, a person is free to rejoin the society and enjoy all other rights available to any individual....there are numerous penal laws which provide for restrictions to be imposed on the exercise of rights and freedoms, which restrictions are in most cases time-limited. At the end of the prescribed time, the restrictions imposed by the penalty cease to operate automatically," the affidavit states..Hence, the contention that the disqualifications under Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution are permanent is "untenable", it has been contended. "The grounds for disqualification given in the above articles are-Holding of an office of profit, unsoundness of mind, insolvency and not being a citizen of India. It is submitted that these are not permanent disqualifications. In all these cases, disqualification is tied to the existence of a supervening circumstance. It would last only so long as the supervening circumstances last i.e., disqualification would cease once the holder of office of profit demits that office, where the insolvent person comes out of insolvency, where the person who was unsound of mind is cured of such unsoundness and where the non-citizen becomes an Indian citizen," the affidavit argues.
