Lifetime Ban on Convicted Politicians? Centre Says It’s Parliament’s Call, Not Courts

New Delhi, February 26, 2025 – The central government has firmly told the Supreme Court that deciding whether convicted politicians face a lifetime ban from elections is a job for Parliament, not the judiciary. This statement came in a counter-affidavit filed on Wednesday, responding to a 2016 petition by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyaya, as reported by Live Law.

Upadhyaya’s plea challenges Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which set temporary bans on politicians after criminal convictions. Under Section 8, a convicted politician is barred from contesting elections for six years after their jail term ends. Section 9 adds a five-year ban for public servants sacked for corruption or disloyalty. The petitioner wants these replaced with a lifetime ban, arguing for tougher rules.

The government disagrees. “Whether a lifetime ban is right or not is purely for Parliament to decide,” it said in the affidavit. It argued that the current laws balance punishment with fairness, deterring wrongdoing without being overly harsh. Swapping “six years” for “life-long” would mean rewriting the law—a step the Centre says courts can’t take.

ALSO READ | ‘Tamil Nadu’s Lok Sabha Seats Safe’ Amit Shah Rejects MK Stalin’s Delimitation Charge

The affidavit stressed that Parliament designed these time-limited bans based on “proportionality and reasonableness.” It pointed out that many Indian laws use fixed penalty periods, and there’s nothing unconstitutional about that approach. The Centre also defended the Act as legally sound, rejecting claims of “excess delegation” to lawmakers.

Upadhyaya’s push for a life ban would require courts to overstep their role, the government warned. “Judges can’t tell Parliament how to write laws or force new legislation,” it said, calling such a move beyond judicial review powers.

This clash highlights a bigger debate: how tough should India be on politicians with criminal records? With elections shaping democracy, the issue remains hotly contested. For now, the Centre stands firm—any change to disqualification rules rests with Parliament, not the Supreme Court. As this case unfolds, it could set a major precedent. Stay tuned for the latest!