Supreme Court petition seeks lifetime ban for convicts

Source: The post Supreme Court petition seeks lifetime ban for convicts has been created, based on the article “Should convicted persons contest elections?” published in “The Hindu” on 13th February 2025

UPSC Syllabus Topic: GS Paper2 – Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act.

Context: The article discusses a Supreme Court petition seeking a lifetime ban on convicted persons from contesting elections. It explains existing disqualification laws, past court rulings, and concerns about criminalization in politics. It also highlights recommendations for stricter rules and electoral reforms.

What are the current legal provisions?

1. Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: A person convicted of a criminal offense and sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment is disqualified from contesting elections for six years after release.
2. Section 8(1) of the RP Act, 1951: A person convicted under laws like the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, UAPA, Prevention of Corruption Act, or for heinous crimes like rape is disqualified irrespective of the sentence period, plus six years after release.
3. Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951: The Election Commission (EC) has the power to remove or reduce the disqualification period of a convicted person. For Example (2019), the EC reduced the disqualification period of Prem Singh Tamang, convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, from six years to 13 months, allowing him to contest and win a by-election in Sikkim. This decision was questioned because the EC had earlier recommended strict action against criminalization in politics.

What were past Supreme Court decisions?

1. ADR Case (2002): The Supreme Court ruled that all candidates must disclose their criminal records before contesting elections.
2. CEC vs. Jan Chaukidar Case (2013): The Supreme Court upheld the Patna High Court’s interpretation that undertrial prisoners cannot contest elections because Section 62(5) of the RP Act states that prisoners cannot vote. Since one qualification to contest elections is to be an elector, undertrials lost eligibility to contest. However, Parliament amended the law in 2013, overturning this judgment and allowing undertrial prisoners to contest elections.
3. Lily Thomas Case (2013): The Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RP Act, 1951, which earlier allowed sitting legislators to continue in office if they filed an appeal after conviction. After this ruling, any sitting legislator is disqualified immediately upon conviction.

What is the Central government’s stance?

In 2020, the Central government filed an affidavit stating that MPs and MLAs are not government employees and do not have service conditions like civil servants. Therefore, it argued that the current disqualification period of six yearsafter serving the sentence is adequate.

Why is criminalization of politics a concern?

1. ADR Report (2024) Findings:

• 251 (46%) of 543 elected MPs have criminal cases against them.
• 171 (31%) of MPs face serious charges, including rape, murder, attempt to murder, and kidnapping.
• Candidates with criminal backgrounds had a 15.4% chance of winning, while candidates with clean records had only a 4.4% chance.

2. Recommendations from the Law Commission (1999, 2014) and the Election Commission (EC):

• They suggested that even persons against whom charges have been framed for offenses punishable by more than five years should be barred from contesting elections.
• However, political parties have not agreed due to concerns over possible misuse of this provision.

What could be the way forward?

1. Lifetime ban for serious crimes: Convictions for heinous crimes and offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act could justify a permanent disqualification to ensure probity in public life.
2. Review of EC’s power to reduce disqualification: The constitutional validity of Section 11 of the RP Act, which allows the Election Commission to reduce or remove disqualifications, should be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

Question for practice:

Evaluate whether the current legal provisions on disqualification of convicted persons from contesting elections are sufficient to address the issue of criminalization in politics.