Should convicted persons contest elections?

(Source – The Hindu, International Edition – Page No. – 10)

Legal Provisions for Disqualification

• The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act, 1951), lays down rules for disqualifying convicted persons from contesting elections.

• Section 8(3) disqualifies individuals convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to at least two years of imprisonment. They remain disqualified for six years after their release.

• Section 8(1) imposes disqualification irrespective of sentence length for those convicted under laws dealing with heinous crimes such as rape, untouchability, unlawful associations, and corruption.

Election Commission’s Role in Reducing Disqualification

• Section 11 of the RP Act gives the Election Commission (EC) the power to reduce or remove disqualification for convicted individuals.

• In 2019, the EC reduced the disqualification period of a convicted individual from six years to 13 months, enabling them to contest elections.

• This decision was controversial, as the EC had previously recommended stricter measures to curb criminalization of politics.

Current Petition and Government’s Response

• The petition seeks a lifetime ban on convicted persons contesting elections.

• The argument is that if convicted individuals cannot get government jobs, they should not be allowed to become lawmakers.

• However, the Central government has opposed this, stating that MPs and MLAs are not bound by service conditions like government employees, and the existing six-year disqualification after release is sufficient.

• The Supreme Court has asked for a response from both the Central government and the EC.

Need for Electoral Reforms

• A report by ADR highlights that 46% of elected MPs in 2024 have criminal cases, and 31% face serious charges like rape, murder, and kidnapping.

• The Law Commission (1999 and 2014) and the Election Commission have recommended banning individuals from contesting elections if charges are framed against them for offences punishable by more than five years.

• However, political parties have not reached a consensus, fearing misuse of disqualification rules.

Possible Solutions

• A permanent ban may be excessive for cases not involving moral turpitude.

• For heinous crimes and corruption cases, a lifetime ban may be necessary to maintain probity in public life.

• Also, the Election Commission’s power to reduce disqualification periods should be reviewed for constitutional validity.