New Delhi: Should politicians who are convicted be allowed to make a comeback? What should be their punishment?
The long-standing debate is now in the country’s top court, which is hearing the matter based on a petition by advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya.
In an affidavit filed in response to a petition by advocate Upadhyaya seeking a life ban on politicians convicted in criminal cases, the Central government told the Supreme Court on Wednesday that a lifetime ban will be harsh and six years, which is the current period of disqualification, is enough as a deterrent.
“The question whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the Parliament,” the Centre said in the affidavit.
The term of disqualification is decided by the House “considering the principles of proportionality and reasonability,” it submitted, adding that by limiting the penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence is ensured and undue harshness avoided.
Upadhyaya has challenged Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 in his petition, and also sought speedy disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs.
Under Section 8 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the period of disqualification is six years from the date of conviction or, in case of imprisonment, six years from the date of release, the government said in the affidavit.
Under Section 9, public servants who have been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to the State shall be disqualified for a period of five years from the date of such dismissal.
Upadhyaya has pleaded that disqualification in both cases should be for life.
The Centre contended that there was nothing unconstitutional about limiting the effect of penalties by time and that doing so was a settled principle of law.
“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,” the affidavit said.
The Centre further argued that under judicial review, Supreme Court could only strike down the laws as unconstitutional but not grant the relief of lifetime ban sought by the petitioner.
