Parth Bajaj
On February 10, 2025 the Supreme Court deliberated on a crucial legal issue- whether individuals convicted of criminal offenses should face a lifetime ban from contesting elections. The Union of India strongly opposed such a ban, arguing in an affidavit that this decision lay solely with Parliament and not the judiciary. The government emphasized that any disqualification had to be based on the principles of proportionality and reasonability, making a lifetime ban excessive and legally untenable.
The plea, filed by BJP leader Ashwini Upadhyay, challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951. Section 8 disqualified convicted politicians from contesting elections for six years after completing their sentence, while Section 9 barred individuals dismissed from government service due to corruption or disloyalty from contesting elections for five years.
A Supreme Court Division Bench led by Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan had earlier questioned why convicted lawmakers were barred for only six years, highlighting a possible “conflict of interest in allowing a law-breaker to be a lawmaker.”
The government, however, argued that legal penalties needed to be time-limited and proportionate. It cited the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, which ensured that punishments aligned with the severity of an offense. The affidavit stated, “Post serving of such penalty, a person is free to rejoin society and enjoy all other rights available to any individual… there are numerous penal laws which provide for time-limited restrictions.” The Centre maintained that permanent disqualification contradicted Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution, which only imposed disqualifications based on supervening circumstances such as insolvency, unsoundness of mind, or non-citizenship.
The Court’s verdict in this case had the potential to reshape electoral laws in India. While advocates of stricter reforms argued that lifetime disqualification was necessary to uphold political integrity, the government insisted that Parliament alone should decide the duration of such restrictions. The ruling needed to balance electoral fairness, constitutional rights, and legislative authority, setting a precedent for how India handled criminality in politics.
Case Name: Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union Of India
Case Number: Writ Petition (C) No. 699 of 2016
Bench: Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan