On Tuesday, the central government opposed a petition that called for a lifetime ban on convicted lawmakers from running in elections.

As reported by the Hindustan Times, the Union government told the Supreme Court that setting a time limit on penalties is not unconstitutional. It argued that this approach helps maintain deterrence while also preventing excessive punishment. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in 2016 to contest the constitutionality of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act and to seek a lifetime ban on lawmakers who have been convicted. Currently, guilty politicians are subject to a six-year restriction term.  

This month, on February 10, a Supreme Court panel headed by Justice Dipankar Datta questioned the union government about the reasoning behind limiting convicted politicians' disqualification time to six years. The highest court noted that permitting a criminal to serve as a lawmaker presents an "apparent conflict of interest." In response to this, the Union Law Ministry on Tuesday filed an affidavit in SC. “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,” the affidavit stated. “The relief that the petitioner is seeking amounts to re-writing of the provision as it effectively seeks to read ‘life-long’ instead of ‘six years’ in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951,” it added. 

Section 8 of the Act states that politicians convicted of certain crimes or sentenced to at least two years in jail cannot run for elections for six years after completing their sentence. Section 9 of the Act prohibits individuals dismissed from government jobs for corruption or disloyalty to the country from contesting elections for five years after their removal. The government clarified that while courts can strike down laws if they violate the Constitution, they cannot dictate how Parliament should create or amend laws. The affidavit stated, “It is trite law that the Courts cannot direct Parliament to make a law or to legislate in a particular way,” referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Madras Bar Association Vs Union of India (2021), which clarified that “the courts cannot direct the legislature to frame or enact a law in a particular manner.”

The government also referred to the State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Satpal Saini (2017) case, which highlighted that creating policies is the responsibility of the executive and legislature. Courts can only intervene if a policy violates the Constitution. The affidavit emphasised that the decision to impose a lifetime ban rests solely with Parliament.