Should Convicted Politicians Face Lifetime Ban? SC to Hear PIL Seeking Life Disqualification on Oct 20

The Supreme Court on Tuesday took note of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking the permanent disqualification of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) upon conviction in criminal cases.

The PIL, filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, also challenges the existing provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which disqualify convicted lawmakers for only six years after completing their sentence.

The matter was mentioned before the Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi by Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria, who submitted, “This is a matter of grave concern. Orders have been passed from time to time. The February 10 order requires the matter to be listed before a three-judge bench. Kindly list it on a convenient date.”

The Bench directed the matter to be placed before the Chief Justice of India, B.R. Gavai, referring specifically to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the February 10, 2025 order passed by a Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta.

The PIL, which raises serious questions about criminalisation in politics, is likely to be heard finally on October 20.

Importantly, in February the Union government had opposed the plea for life-time ban on contesting elections for convicted politicians under the Representation of People Act, instead of the existing six years.

Maintaining the issue fell within the "domain of Parliament", the legislative department contended under the power of judicial review, the court can declare a provision as unconstitutional or inoperative but the instant plea sought to rewrite the law which is unknown to the principle of judicial review and constitutional law. It had said the relief that the petitioner sought amounts to re-writing of the provision as it effectively seeks to read "life-long" instead of "six years" in all sub-sections of section 8 of Representation of the People Act, 1951. The said approach is unknown to judicial review and unknown to any canon of constitution law, it contended.

"A lifetime disqualification is the maximum that can be imposed under the provisions and to impose such a disqualification is certainly within the power of Parliament. However, it is one thing to say that a power exists and another to say that it must necessarily be exercised in every case," it said. The government further said the plea of the petitioner amounted to re-writing of the statute or directing the Parliament to frame a law in a particular manner which is wholly beyond the powers of judicial review.

The government submitted that the question of whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of Parliament.

"It is not for the petitioner or the respondent 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," it said. The government also said there are numerous penal laws that provide for restrictions to be imposed on the exercise of rights and freedoms, which are in most cases time-limited. At the end of the prescribed time, the restrictions imposed by the penalty cease to operate automatically.

"By confining the operation of the penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence is ensured while undue harshness is avoided," it said. The government also pointed out the petition failed to make the crucial distinction between the basis of disqualification and the effects of disqualification.

It is to be noted, that on February 10, 2025, the Court had asked the government to respond to the plea by Upadhyaya seeking permanent ban on those convicted of criminal offences from contesting elections to Parliament and State Assemblies.

Case Title: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India & Ors.

Mentioning Date: August 5, 2025

Bench: Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi

Tags

Articles