The Indian government has opposed a plea before the Supreme Court seeking a lifetime ban on convicted individuals from contesting elections, asserting that such a decision rests with Parliament, not the judiciary.
In an affidavit submitted to the court, the Centre argued that any restriction on political participation should align with principles of proportionality and reasonableness, which Parliament, not an individual petitioner, must determine. The government emphasized that legal penalties are inherently time-bound and that a permanent disqualification contradicts this foundational principle.
The petition, filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, challenges Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act. Section 8 disqualifies convicted politicians from contesting elections for six years after serving their sentence if they were convicted of certain offenses or sentenced to two or more years in prison. Section 9 bars individuals dismissed from government service due to corruption or disloyalty from contesting elections for five years.
Earlier this month, a Supreme Court bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta questioned the rationale behind the six-year restriction, noting the apparent contradiction of allowing lawbreakers to become lawmakers. However, the government defended the existing framework, arguing that all penal laws impose punishments within defined limits, ensuring individuals can reintegrate into society once their sentence ends.
The affidavit underscored that constitutional disqualifications under Articles 102 and 191—such as holding an office of profit, insolvency, unsoundness of mind, or non-citizenship—are not permanent. These restrictions cease when the underlying condition changes, and the same logic, the government contended, should apply to criminal convictions.