By Somya Panwar
Opposing a plea to ban politicians from contesting elections permanently if convicted under criminal cases, a counter affidavit has been filed in Supreme Court by the Union Government.
The affidavit was filed in response to the petition filed in 2016 by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyaya that challenges the constitutional validity of section 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The period of disqualification is a matter that is purely within the domain of legislative policy, said the Government.
As per the section 8, a person convicted under a specific offence has to be disqualified for a period of 6 years after serving their jail term. As per section 9, public servants who are charged under corruption or disloyalty against the state shall be disqualified for a period of 5 years after the dismissal. The petitioner’s demand is to increase the period of disqualification for a life-term.
The question of whether the disqualification should be for life-term or not, is completely under parliament’s jurisdiction, Centre said while opposing the plea.
The Parliament considers the principles of proportionality and reasonability and the decision to change the period of disqualification lies in the hands of Parliament.
The Centre opposing the plea asserted that it challenges the provisions of constitutionally sound and not suffering from the vice of excess delegation and are intra vires of Parliament. The Petitioner through the plea seeks re-writing the provision by changing life-long instead of six years, in subsections of section 8 of Representation of the People Act, 1951. The Government has mentioned that the approach is unknown to judicial review and to any canon of the constitution.
The Centre also stated that there is nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the time period of the penalty. There are various penal laws that limit the disqualification period by time.