Description

Copyright infringement not intended

Context:

The Supreme Court is currently hearing petitions that argue for a lifetime ban on convicted individuals from contesting elections.

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 about convicted persons contesting elections

The Representation of the People Act (RP Act), 1951, disqualifies individuals convicted of criminal offenses under specific conditions:

Section 8(3): A person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more is disqualified from contesting elections for six years after their release.
Section 8(1): A person convicted of heinous crimes like rape, corruption, or offenses under laws like the Prevention of Corruption Act or UAPA is disqualified regardless of the sentence length, with an additional six-year disqualification after release.

Supreme Court judgments on decriminalizing politics

Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) Case (2002): The Court mandated the disclosure of criminal records of all candidates contesting elections.

Lily Thomas v/s Union of India (2013): The Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RP Act, which allowed convicted legislators to continue in office if they filed an appeal. The Court ruled that disqualification takes effect immediately upon conviction.

Public Interest Foundation v/s Union of India (2018): The Court emphasized the need to decriminalize politics but left it to Parliament to enact laws barring candidates with pending criminal cases.

Current petition before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is hearing petitions filed by Ashwin Upadhyay and others, seeking a lifetime ban on convicted persons from contesting elections. The petitioners argue that if convicted individuals are ineligible for government jobs, then they should not be allowed to become lawmakers after serving their sentence.

Government stance

In a 2020 affidavit, the Central government stated that MPs and MLAs are not bound by the same service conditions as government employees.

Arguments in favor of allowing convicted persons to contest elections

Individuals should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and disqualification should apply only after all appeals are exhausted.

Opponents may misuse legal provisions to frame rival leaders unfairly.

Voters should have the freedom to choose their representatives, even if they have been convicted.

Cases often take years to resolve, and banning individuals based on lower court rulings may be unfair if they are later acquitted.

Arguments against allowing convicted persons to contest elections

Lawmakers should be held to higher moral and ethical standards.

Barring convicted individuals would reduce criminal influence in governance.

Voters lose faith in the system when individuals with criminal records hold public office.

Many democracies impose stricter eligibility criteria for political candidates.

Challenges in implementing a lifetime ban on convicted persons

Political parties may weaponize the judicial process to eliminate rivals through fabricated cases.

Despite recommendations from the Election Commission and Law Commission, Parliament has not enacted comprehensive reforms.

Speedy trials for politicians facing serious charges are necessary to ensure justice while preserving electoral rights.

The Election Commission has recommended:

Barring candidates from contesting elections if serious criminal charges are framed against them by a competent court.
Reducing the influence of criminal elements in politics by disqualifying individuals convicted of heinous crimes.