A lifetime ban on politicians convicted in criminal cases would be harsh and six years, which is the current period of disqualification, is enough to act as a deterrent, the Centre has told the Supreme Court.
In an affidavit filed in response to a petition by advocate Ashwini Upadhyaya seeking a life ban on politicians convicted in criminal cases and the speedy disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the country, the Union government said deciding the period of disqualification is solely within the domain of Parliament.
"The question whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the Parliament," the Centre said in the affidavit, adding that the term of disqualification is decided by the House "considering the principles of proportionality and reasonability".
By limiting the penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence was ensured while undue harshness was avoided, it added.
In his petition, Mr Upadhyaya has challenged Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act 1951.
Under Section 8 (1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the period of disqualification was six years from the date of conviction or, in case of imprisonment, six years from the date of release, the government said in the affidavit.
Under Section 9, public servants who have been dismissed for corruption or for disloyalty to the State shall be disqualified for a period of five years from the date of such dismissal. Mr Upadhyaya had said that the disqualification in both cases should be for life.
Judicial Review
In the affidavit, the Centre said there was nothing unconstitutional about limiting the effect of penalties by time and that doing so was a settled principle of law.
"It is submitted that issues raised by the petitioner have wide-ranging ramifications and clearly fall within the legislative policy of Parliament and the contours of judicial review would be suitably altered in such regard," it said.
Under judicial review, the Centre argued, the Supreme Court could only strike down the laws as unconstitutional but not grant the relief of lifetime ban sought by the petitioner.
'Constitutionally Sound'
The affidavit said the current laws were "constitutionally sound" and "did not suffer from the vice of excess delegation".
"The Constitution has left the field open to Parliament to enact such further laws governing disqualifications as it deems fit. Parliament has the power both to determine the grounds for disqualification and the duration of disqualification," it said, citing Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution, which deal with disqualifications for membership of the Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha, legislative assemblies or legislative councils.
The Supreme Court had, in April 2013, held that MPs and MLAs convicted with a minimum two-year sentence will be immediately disqualified from the House without getting three months to appeal, as was the case until then. The UPA government at the Centre had then pushed through an ordinance to negate this, which was vociferously opposed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
Mr Gandhi had called the move "complete nonsense" and the ordinance was eventually scrapped.
(With inputs from PTI)
