In response to the argument that the six-year disqualification for convicted individuals from running for office should be changed to a lifetime ban, the Center told the Supreme Court that the current law was constitutionally sound and that Parliament should make the decision to change it rather than the judiciary. As other grounds of disqualification, such as holding an office of profit, being mentally ill, being insolvent, or not being an Indian citizen, were time-bound and tied to the existence of a supervening circumstance, the Center contended in an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court that there was nothing wrong with imposing a time-bound penalty.
Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act states that the disqualification period begins six years after the conviction date, or six years after the release date in the case of incarceration. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who is currently with the BJP, challenged the provision in a petition asking the Supreme Court to abolish the time-bound penalty and permanently prohibit a convicted individual from running for office as an MP or MLA, starting a political party, or holding office.
The Center refuted the claim, stating that “it would not be appropriate to substitute the petitioner’s understanding of the issue and impose a lifetime ban because disqualifications made under the impugned sections are limited by time as a matter of parliamentary policy.” The relief he is requesting amounts to a rewriting of the provision since it essentially aims to read “lifelong” instead of “six years” in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Act. However, the court has the authority to declare the provisions unconstitutional and inoperative as a matter of judicial review.”
“Only Parl can determine whether or not a lifetime ban is appropriate.” According to the government, Parliament alone should decide whether or not a lifetime ban would be appropriate. Similar to the contested Act, several other laws stipulate time-limited penalties. It is argued that this is consistent with the well-established rules that govern criminal law. Deterrence is guaranteed and excessive severity is prevented by limiting the penalty’s application to a suitable period of time, according to the affidavit.
“The petitioner’s concerns are far-reaching and obviously fall under Parliament’s legislative policy, and the parameters of judicial review would be appropriately modified in this respect. The Supreme Court has ruled that a legislative decision regarding either option cannot be challenged in court regarding its effectiveness or otherwise,” the statement continued. “The maximum penalty allowed by the provisions is a lifetime disqualification, and Parliament has the authority to impose such a disqualification.
“The petitioner’s prayer is equivalent to changing the statute or ordering Parliament to draft a law in a specific way, which is completely outside the purview of judicial review. The affidavit stated that it is common knowledge that courts cannot order Parliament to enact legislation in a specific manner.
