Context:
- The Centre has opposed a lifetime ban on convicted politicians from contesting elections or holding legislative positions.
- It argues that penal punishments are finite in nature and that once a sentence is served, rights should be restored.
- The Supreme Court had questioned the “apparent conflict of interest” in allowing convicted politicians to return as lawmakers.
Relevance : GS 2(Polity , Governance)
Government’s Stand
- Current disqualification provisions under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) are sufficient (disqualification lasts for the prison term + 6 years).
- Lifetime ban would be excessive – Punishments under penal law apply only for a fixed term, after which citizens regain their full rights.
- Legal consistency – Other convicts in society do not face permanent loss of rights after completing their sentence.
Supreme Court’s Concerns
- Conflict of interest – Lawbreakers should not become lawmakers.
- Question of public trust – A convicted individual re-entering politics could undermine governance and legislative integrity.
Key Constitutional & Legal Aspects
- Article 14 (Right to Equality) – Lifetime ban may be seen as discriminatory.
- Article 19 (Freedom of Speech & Expression) – Restrictions on political participation must be reasonable.
- Moral & Ethical Governance – Legislators should uphold the law, not exploit legal loopholes.
Arguments For Lifetime Ban
- Ensuring Clean Politics – Prevents criminal elements from influencing governance.
- Enhancing Democratic Integrity – Restores public trust in the electoral process.
- Precedent in Other Fields – Bureaucrats and judges face lifelong restrictions post-conviction.
Arguments Against Lifetime Ban
- Rehabilitation & Reintegration – Convicts should be given a second chance.
- Selective Disqualification – No such rule exists for corporate leaders, bureaucrats, or other public figures.
- Potential for Political Misuse – Opponents may use criminal charges to permanently eliminate rivals.
