The Central Government protested in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, protesting the petition seeking a lifetime ban on politicians who are convicted in criminal cases, saying that such disqualification is completely under the jurisdiction of Parliament.
The affidavit filed by the Center in the court said at the Center, ‘The same demand has been made in the petition that is like writing the law or directing Parliament to enact a law in a special way which is completely out of the powers of judicial review. The question is whether lifetime restrictions will be appropriate or not, it is completely under the jurisdiction of Parliament.
The affidavit states that the action of the penalty and limited the fine to the appropriate time period is ensured. While the strictness of unnecessary is avoided.
The Center said that there is no unconstitutional thing in limiting the impact of punishment on time basis and it is the established principle of law that the punishment is limited either on time basis or on the basis of result. The affidavit states, “It has been presented that the issues raised by the petitioner have widespread impacts and they clearly come under the legislative policy of Parliament and the outline of judicial review will be made properly in this regard.”
The petition filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay in the Supreme Court has demanded a lifetime ban on politicians convicted in addition to early settlement of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the country.
The Center said in its affidavit that the apex court had constantly stated that the legislative option on one option or another cannot be questioned in the court.
What does sections say 8 and 9
The Center said that according to Section 8, a person convicted for a particular crime is disqualified for six years after the completion of the jail period. Similarly, Section 9 provides that public servants dismissed due to corruption or devotion to the state will be denied eligibility for five years from the date of dismissal. However, the petitioner argued that such disqualification should be extended to a lifetime ban. The duration of disqualification is decided by the Parliament keeping in mind the principles of proportionate and regionalness.
It states, “The disqualifications under the sections accused under the parliamentary policy are limited to time and it would not be appropriate to replace the petitioner’s understanding on the issue and impose a lifetime ban.” The Center said that the disputed provisions are constitutionally strong and do not suffer from the defect of additional delegation among them and they fall within the legislative authority of Parliament.
Re -changing law is like
The Center also argued that the demand made by the petitioner will inevitably be equivalent to writing the law again in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Such attitude is neither recognized in the judicial review nor is associated with any established principles of the constitutional law.
The Center said that the petition failed to clarify the significant difference between the influences of disqualification on the basis of disqualification. The affidavit said that the petitioner’s trust in Article 102 and 191 of the Constitution was completely wrong. Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution are related to disqualification for membership of any House of Parliament, Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council.
The government said, ‘The petitioner’s prayer law is similar to writing a re -writing of law or giving Parliament to enact a law in a particular way, which is completely out of the powers of judicial review. It is a general law that the court cannot instruct Parliament to enact a law or make a law in a particular way.
Apart from this, the government also emphasized that many punitive laws impose a time-limit ban on disqualification. It states that nothing is unconstitutional about limiting the impact of punishment to a certain period of time.