{"id":326675,"date":"2025-02-13T17:12:43","date_gmt":"2025-02-13T11:42:43","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/?p=326675"},"modified":"2025-02-13T17:12:43","modified_gmt":"2025-02-13T11:42:43","slug":"supreme-court-petition-seeks-lifetime-ban-for-convicts","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/forumias.com\/blog\/supreme-court-petition-seeks-lifetime-ban-for-convicts\/","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court petition seeks lifetime ban for convicts"},"content":{"rendered":"

Source<\/strong>: The post Supreme Court petition seeks lifetime ban for convicts has been created, based on the article \u201cShould convicted persons contest elections?<\/strong>\u201d published in \u201cThe Hindu<\/strong>\u201d on 13th February 2025<\/p>\n

UPSC Syllabus Topic:<\/strong> GS Paper2 – Salient features of the Representation of People\u2019s Act.<\/p>\n

Context<\/strong>: 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.<\/p>\n

What are the current legal provisions?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
    \n
  1. Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951<\/strong>: A person convicted of a criminal offense and sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment<\/strong> is disqualified from contesting elections for six years after release<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
  2. Section 8(1) of the RP Act, 1951<\/strong>: A person convicted under laws like the Protection of Civil Rights (PCR) Act, UAPA, Prevention of Corruption Act<\/strong>, or for heinous crimes like rape<\/strong> is disqualified irrespective of the sentence period<\/strong>, plus six years after release<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
  3. Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951<\/strong>: The Election Commission (EC) has the power<\/strong> to remove or reduce<\/strong> the disqualification period of a convicted person. For Example (2019), t<\/strong>he EC reduced the disqualification period<\/strong> of Prem Singh Tamang<\/strong>, convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act<\/strong>, from six years to 13 months<\/strong>, allowing him to contest and win a by-election in Sikkim<\/strong>. This decision was questioned because the EC had earlier recommended strict action against criminalization in politics<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    What were past Supreme Court decisions?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
      \n
    1. ADR Case (2002)<\/strong>: The Supreme Court ruled that all candidates must disclose their criminal records<\/strong> before contesting elections.<\/li>\n
    2. CEC vs. Jan Chaukidar Case (2013)<\/strong>: The Supreme Court upheld the Patna High Court\u2019s interpretation<\/strong> that undertrial prisoners cannot contest elections<\/strong> because Section 62(5) of the RP Act<\/strong> states that prisoners cannot vote<\/strong>. Since one qualification to contest elections is to be an elector<\/strong>, undertrials lost eligibility<\/strong> to contest. However, Parliament amended the law in 2013<\/strong>, overturning this judgment and allowing undertrial prisoners to contest elections<\/strong>.<\/li>\n
    3. Lily Thomas Case (2013)<\/strong>: The Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RP Act, 1951<\/strong>, which earlier allowed sitting legislators<\/strong> to continue in office if they filed an appeal<\/strong> after conviction. After this ruling, any sitting legislator is disqualified immediately upon conviction<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      What is the Central government\u2019s stance?<\/strong><\/h2>\n

      In 2020<\/strong>, the Central government filed an affidavit stating that MPs and MLAs are not government employees<\/strong> and do not have service conditions<\/strong> like civil servants. Therefore, it argued that the current disqualification period of six years<\/strong>after serving the sentence is adequate<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

      Why is criminalization of politics a concern?<\/strong><\/h2>\n
        \n
      1. ADR Report (2024) Findings<\/strong>:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n