On Monday, the Supreme Court requested responses from the Central Government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) regarding a public interest litigation filed in 2016. This plea challenges the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, with the aim of permanently disqualifying convicted lawmakers—both at the parliamentary and state levels—from contesting elections.Under current law, a lawmaker loses their membership in Parliament or the state legislature upon conviction and remains disqualified from running for elections for six years following the completion of their sentence.

The notice regarding this public interest litigation was first issued on September 14, 2016.

A bench comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan directed the Central Government to submit its response, warning that the court might proceed to rule on the matter without a government reply. The ECI was also asked to respond to the petition filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay.

The bench invited Attorney General R. Venkataramani to assist in the hearing.

Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, details the disqualification and removal of lawmakers upon conviction under various statutes, including the Indian Penal Code and the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955, which penalizes the promotion and practice of “untouchability.” Section 9 of the Act states that individuals dismissed from government service for corruption or disloyalty to the state face disqualification for five years from their date of dismissal.

Regarding the expedited handling of criminal cases against lawmakers, the bench noted that it would not be appropriate for a two-judge panel to re-examine the matter since a three-judge bench had already issued a ruling on it on November 9, 2023. However, they instructed the registry to present the issue of speeding up criminal case resolutions to the Chief Justice of India for consideration by a larger bench.

The case is set to be heard again in three weeks, on March 4, with the Supreme Court indicating that it would decide on the lifetime disqualification of convicted politicians from elections.

The top court is addressing the PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which seeks to implement lifelong disqualification for convicted Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs), alongside a request for a one-year deadline for resolving criminal cases against government members.

During the proceedings, senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, serving as amicus curiae, highlighted significant obstacles, including special MP/MLA courts dealing with other cases, frequent adjournments, and insufficient enforcement of procedural rules.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing the petitioner, urged the court to restrict the re-entry of convicted individuals into politics. He emphasized that permitting those found guilty of serious crimes to re-enter politics after short sentences undermines the integrity of democracy. Singh criticized political parties for persistently nominating candidates with criminal backgrounds.

He remarked, “Our democracy has evolved over 75 years; yet, 46-48 percent of elected representatives face severe charges, including rape and murder. Parliament could not have intended for such individuals to hold power.”