In a significant development, the Supreme Court on Tuesday asked the Election Commission of India to provide details of cases in which it had either removed or reduced the period of disqualification from electoral rolls of leaders post their conviction in criminal cases.
A bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan asked the poll panel to furnish within two weeks details of such cases in which it exercised its power under Section 11 of the Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951.
Under the RPA, the period of disqualification from electoral politics post-conviction in criminal cases varies depending on the offence and sentence.
In cases relating to imprisonment of two or more years, a person is disqualified from the date of conviction until six years after their release, even if they are out on bail or awaiting appeal.
However, the Election Commission of India (ECI) is empowered under Section 11 of the Act to remove or reduce the period of disqualification after recording the reasons.
The bench said PIL petitioner Ashwini Upadhyay and others could file a rejoinder to the EC's response within two weeks after the details were furnished by the poll panel.
The 2016 PIL, filed through advocate Ashwani Dubey, sought a life ban on convicted politicians aside from the expeditious disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the country.
On being informed that a similar plea of NGO Lok Prahari was pending and being heard by another bench, Justice Datta referred the PIL of Upadhyay to the Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna for clubbing them and listing them before one court.
The bench said the matters should be listed expeditiously after the CJI passes an administrative order.
During brief hearing, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, assisting the bench as an amicus curiae, said the details of reduction or removal of disqualification of convicted politicians were not available and the same should be provided.
Senior advocate Vikas Singh, appearing for the petitioner, said steps were needed to prevent criminalisation of politics and quoted the poll panel as saying that chargesheeted persons should be barred from entering into electoral politics.
The ECI counsel said he had no difficulty in providing details of cases where the poll panel exercised its power to reduce or remove the period of disqualification and said the validity of Section 11 of the RPA was not under challenge in the present case.
The Centre, however, opposed the PIL recently and said imposition of life ban on convicted politicians was solely within the domain of Parliament.
In an affidavit, the Centre said the prayer amounted to re-writing of the statute or directing Parliament to frame a law in a particular manner which was wholly beyond the powers of judicial review.
"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 affidavit said.
There was nothing inherently unconstitutional in limiting the effect of penalties by time and it was a settled principle of law that penalties were limited either by time or by quantum, it added.
The apex court on February 10 sought responses of the Centre and the ECI on the challenge to the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of Representation of People Act.
Outlining 'criminalisation of politics' as a major issue, the bench asked how a person could return to Parliament after being convicted in a criminal case.
© 2025