Opposition to Lifetime Ban on Convicted Leaders

Why in News?

Opposition to Lifetime Ban on Convicted Leaders: Currently, the Supreme Court is hearing a plea demanding a lifetime ban on convicted politicians from contesting elections. The central government has opposed this demand, arguing that the existing legal framework is constitutionally valid and it is the Parliament’s prerogative to determine the duration of disqualification under Article 327.

Key Points of the Supreme Court Hearing : Opposition to Lifetime Ban on Convicted Leaders

• Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay has filed a petition seeking amendments to Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
• The petition calls for a lifetime ban on convicted individuals from contesting elections, forming political parties, or holding party positions.
• The government has cited Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e), asserting that only Parliament has the authority to legislate on electoral disqualifications, not the judiciary.
• The government maintains that a six-year disqualification period is sufficient punishment, and imposing a lifetime ban would be excessive and harsh.
• In other cases of disqualification (such as holding an office of profit, mental incapacity, insolvency, or foreign citizenship), a fixed time limit is specified; therefore, the same principle should apply to convicted politicians as well.

What is Representation of the People Act, 1951?

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA, 1951) serves as a critical legal foundation for ensuring free and fair elections in India. This legislation governs election procedures, defines qualifications and disqualifications, establishes rules for electoral conduct, and provides a framework for handling election-related disputes.

• Background of the Act
  • After India’s Constitution was adopted on November 26, 1949, Article 327 granted Parliament the authority to legislate on electoral matters.
  • As a result, India’s provisional Parliament enacted the RPA, 1951, before the country’s first general elections in 1952 to ensure a well-structured democratic electoral system.
• Key Provisions of the Act
  • The primary objective of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, is to regulate elections to Parliament and State Legislatures while maintaining electoral integrity. 
  • Rules for announcing election schedules, nomination processes, voting procedures, and vote counting.
  • Empowering the Election Commission of India (ECI) with necessary authority to oversee elections independently and fairly.
  • Defining eligibility criteria such as minimum age, voter registration, and constitutional qualifications.
  • Clearly outlining electoral offenses, including bribery, coercion, voter intimidation, and violations of the Model Code of Conduct.
  • Providing a legal framework for election-related disputes, allowing petitions to be filed before the respective High Court for resolution.

Legal Provisions Related to Convicted Persons Contesting Elections

To maintain the integrity of Indian democracy, the Representation of the People Act, 1951 lays down various provisions that regulate the eligibility of convicted individuals to contest elections. 

• Section 8(3): If a person is convicted of an offense and sentenced to two years or more of imprisonment, they are disqualified from contesting elections during the sentence period and for six years after release.
• Section 8(1): For heinous crimes, disqualification is not dependent on the duration of the sentence. Crimes such as rape, corruption, terrorism (UAPA offenses), and untouchability-related offenses fall under this category. Convicted individuals in these cases remain disqualified for six years even after completing their sentence.
• Section 62(5): A convicted individual lodged in jail is barred from voting. However, this section allows undertrial prisoners (those not yet convicted) to contest elections, making it a significant loophole.
• Section 11: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has the power to reduce or remove the period of disqualification for convicted individuals. This provision serves to balance judicial punishment with political considerations but also raises concerns regarding potential misuse.

Why Should Convicted Individuals Be Banned from Elections?

• Rising Criminalization: The increasing presence of criminal backgrounds in politics is a major concern. According to a 2024 report by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), 46% of elected MPs have criminal cases against them. Among them, 31% face charges for heinous crimes like murder and rape. This undermines democracy and suggests that criminal elements are exploiting electoral processes to gain power.
• Higher Electoral Success:;Studies show that candidates with criminal backgrounds have a 15.4% chance of winning elections, whereas clean candidates have only a 4.4% success rate. This highlights the role of money, muscle power, and coercion in elections, threatening the principles of free and fair democracy.
• Moral Incapacity: Integrity and morality are fundamental to politics. When individuals convicted of serious crimes enter positions of power, law enforcement becomes weak, and corruption flourishes. This impacts the credibility of the entire administrative system.
• Erosion of Public Trust: If convicted individuals assume public office, it leads to public distrust in the political system. When criminals and corrupt individuals hold power, self-interest dominates governance, overshadowing public welfare.

Key Supreme Court Judgments on Disqualification of Convicted Individuals

The Supreme Court has played a crucial role in ensuring greater transparency and accountability in politics through landmark rulings.

• CEC vs. Jan Chowkidar (2013): The Supreme Court upheld the Patna High Court’s ruling, stating that prisoners lose their “elector” status under Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This led to the disqualification of undertrial prisoners from contesting elections.
• ADR Case (2002): The Supreme Court made it mandatory for all candidates contesting elections to disclose their criminal records. This decision helped voters make informed choices, strengthening electoral transparency.
• Lily Thomas Case (2013): The Court struck down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which had previously allowed convicted MPs/MLAs to retain their positions while appealing their convictions. After this ruling, any elected representative convicted of a crime is immediately disqualified.

Challenges in Imposing a Ban on Convicted Politicians

• Misuse of Criminal Cases: Political rivalries often lead to the misuse of criminal cases. If mere allegations are used to disqualify candidates, political parties could weaponize false charges against opponents, manipulating elections unfairly.
• Fairness and Discretionary Power of Election Commission: Under Section 11, the Election Commission has the discretion to alter disqualification periods. However, this raises concerns about impartiality, as political pressure could influence decisions.
• Lack of Proportionality: Not all crimes indicate moral incapacity for public office. Lifetime disqualification for minor offenses (such as protest-related arrests) would be excessive. The severity and nature of the crime must be considered when determining disqualification periods.
• Delay in Judicial Proceedings: India’s legal system is known for slow trials. Many candidates with serious charges contest multiple elections before conviction due to judicial delays. This allows criminal elements to remain in power, making speedy trials essential to uphold democracy.

Explore our Books: https://apnipathshala.com/product-category/books/

Explore Our test Series: https://tests.apnipathshala.com/