In Supreme Court, government opposes life ban on convicted netas

NEW DELHI: Opposing the plea that the six-year disqualification for convicted persons from contesting polls be turned into a lifelong ban, Centre has told Supreme Court that the present law was constitutionally sound and it should be left to Parliament to decide on amending the law and the judiciary should refrain from passing direction.
In an affidavit filed in SC, the Centre argued that there was nothing wrong in imposing time-bound penalty as other grounds of disqualification - such as holding an office of profit, unsoundness of mind, insolvency and not being a citizen of India - were not permanent but time-bound and disqualification was tied to the existence of a supervening circumstance.
According to Section 8 of Representation of the People Act, the period of disqualification kicks in six years from the date of conviction or in case of imprisonment, six years from the date of release.
Challenging the provision, advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, now with BJP, filed a petition seeking SC's direction to do away with time-bound penalty and bar a convicted person for life from contesting MP/MLA election, forming political party or becoming office-bearer of a political party.

Disputing the contention, the Centre said, "Disqualifications made under the impugned sections are limited by time as a matter of parliamentary policy and it would not be appropriate to substitute the petitioner's understanding of the issue and impose a lifetime ban. As a matter of judicial review, the court can declare the provisions to be unconstitutional and declare them to be inoperative, however, the relief that he is seeking amounts to rewriting of the provision as it effectively seeks to read 'lifelong' instead of 'six years' in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Act."
'Only Parl can decide if lifetime ban would be appropriate or not'
The govt said whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate or not was a question that was solely within the domain of Parliament. "Numerous laws provide for penalties limited by time, in the same manner as in the impugned Act. It is submitted that this is in line with well-established principles governing penal law. By confining the operation of the penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence is ensured while undue harshness is avoided," the affidavit said.
"The 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. SC has held that legislative choice over one option or the other cannot be questioned in courts over its efficacy or otherwise," it added. "A lifetime disqualification is the maximum that can be imposed under the provisions and to impose such a disqualification is certainly within the power of Parliament.
"The prayer of the petitioner amounts to rewriting of the statute or directing Parliament to frame a law in a particular manner which is wholly beyond the powers of judicial review. It is trite law that courts cannot direct Parliament to make a law or to legislate in a particular way," the affidavit said.