Supreme Court asks EC to furnish details on disqualification of convicted politicians-OxBig News Network

The Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Election Commission (EC) to share instances of use of its discretionary power to remove or reduce the period of disqualification of convicted politicians who were otherwise disqualified to contest elections for six years beyond the sentence awarded to them.

According to Section 8(3) of the Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951, a person convicted of an offence and sentenced to imprisonment of two or more years, stands disqualified from the date of conviction until six years after their release.

However, Section 11 of the RPA empowers the Election Commission to remove or reduce the period of disqualification for reasons to be recorded in its order.

While hearing a 2016 PIL, seeking a life ban on convicted politicians and expeditious disposal of criminal cases against lawmakers, a bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta on Tuesday asked EC to furnish in two weeks, details of cases in which it has exercised its power under Section 11 of the RPA.

The top court asked petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay and others to file their rejoinder to EC’s affidavit in two weeks after EC furnished the details asked for.

As another PIL on the issue filed by Lok Prahari was pending before another bench, Justice Datta referred Upadhyay’s petition to CJI Sanjiv Khanna for clubbing the two cases and listing them expeditiously before one bench.

The direction to EC came after senior advocate and amicus curiae Vijay Hansaria said the details of removal or reduction of period of disqualification of convicted politicians were not available and the same should be furnished to the bench to enable it to take a considered view of the matter.

Citing EC’s documents, senior advocate Vikas Singh submitted on behalf of Upadhyay that charge-sheeted individuals should be debarred from contesting elections.

EC’s lawyer said he had no difficulty in providing details sought by the bench with regard to exercise its powers under Section 11 of the RPA even as he sought to clarify that the provision was not under challenge.

Asserting that it was a matter “within the legislative policy of the Parliament”, the Centre had on February 25 opposed the PIL seeking to debar convicted lawmakers for life from contesting polls, forming political parties and holding any post in a political party.

“The question whether a life-time ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the Parliament,” the Centre had said.

Under the current election law, a convicted person is immediately disqualified and he/she is also debarred from contesting polls for six years from the date of completion of his sentence. But the disqualification disappears after the expiry of six years from the date of completion of his/her sentence.

Earlier, the top court had expressed serious concern over criminalisation of politics and asked the Centre and EC to spell out their respective stand on the contentious issue.

The bench wondered on February 10 how a person convicted of a crime can be allowed to return to Parliament and state assemblies. “Once someone is convicted and the conviction is upheld, how can they return to the Parliament and state legislatures?” the bench asked, emphasising that the Centre and Election Commission must provide an explanation. The bench also pointed out an apparent conflict of interest, noting that convicted individuals would be involved in making laws.

It had also sought the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani as the PIL also challenged the validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the RPA which disqualified convicted politicians from holding elected positions for a limited period only.