NEW DELHI: The central government on Wednesday opposed the petition seeking imposition of lifetime ban on convicted politicians and said that taking such a step was solely under Parliament’s domain.
“The question whether a life-time ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the parliament,” the affidavit said. It added that limiting the duration of penalties maintained deterrence while preventing undue harshness.
“It is submitted that issues raised by the petitioner have wide ranging ramifications and clearly fall within the legislative policy of Parliament and the contours of judicial review would be suitably altered in such regard,” it said.
Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has filed a plea in the SC seeking a lifetime ban on convicted politicians and the speedy resolution of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs. In response, the Centre said in its affidavit that the apex court has consistently maintained that legislative decisions cannot be challenged in courts based on their effectiveness or preference for one option over another.
“The disqualifications made under the impugned sections are limited by time as a matter of parliamentary policy and it would not be appropriate to substitute the petitioner’s understanding of the issue and impose a lifetime ban,” it said.
It said that while the court could declare legal provisions unconstitutional through judicial review, the petitioner’s plea essentially sought to replace “six years” with “life-long” in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Act. It said that lifetime disqualification was the maximum penalty permissible under the law and that the discretion to impose it rested solely with Parliament.
The Centre argued that the petition failed to distinguish between the basis and effects of disqualification. While conviction serves as the basis for disqualification, its effects last for a fixed period, which is not inherently unconstitutional. It said that the petitioner’s reliance on Articles 102 and 191 was misplaced, as these provisions empower Parliament to legislate on disqualifications.
The Representation of the People Act, 1951, was enacted under this authority, granting Parliament the discretion to determine both the grounds and duration of disqualification. The Centre also noted that other grounds for disqualification, such as insolvency or holding an office of profit, are not permanent, reinforcing its stance that disqualification need not be lifelong.
The response came after the Supreme Court requested the Centre and the Election Commission to reply regarding the challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act.