Nueva Delhi: The central government opposed on Wednesday the request that seeks the imposition of prohibition for life of convicted politicians And he said that taking that step was only under the domain of Parliament.
“The question of whether a prohibition of life would be appropriate or is not a question that is only within the domain of Parliament,” said the affidavit.
“It is claimed that the problems posed by the petitioner have extensions of extensive distance and are clearly within the legislative policy of Parliament and the contours of the judicial review would be properly altered in such a view,” he said.
The lawyer Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has presented a plea in the SC seeking a prohibition for life of convicted politicians and the rapid resolution of criminal cases against parliamentarians and MLA. In response, the center said in its affidavit that the Apex court has constantly maintained that legislative decisions cannot be challenged in court based on their effectiveness or preference for one option on another.
“The disqualifications made under the contested sections are limited by time as a matter of parliamentary policy and it would not be appropriate to replace the understanding of the request of the problem and impose a prohibition for life,” he said.
He said that while the Court could declare unconstitutional legal provisions through the judicial review, the petitioner’s supplication essentially tried to replace “six years” with “a lifetime” in all subsections of section 8 of the law. He said that The disqualification for life was the maximum penalty allowed by law and that the discretion of imposing it rested only with Parliament.
The center argued that the petition could not distinguish between the base and the effects of disqualification. While the conviction serves as a basis for disqualification, its effects last a fixed period, which is not inherently unconstitutional. He said that the dependency of the petitioner in articles 102 and 191 was out of place, since these provisions allow Parliament to legislate on disqualifications.
The representation of the People Law, 1951, was promulgated under this authority, giving Parliament the discretion of determining both the reasons and the duration of disqualification. The center also pointed out that other reasons for disqualification, such as insolvency or celebration of a profit position, are not permanent, which reinforces its position that disqualification does not need to be for life.
The response occurred after the Supreme Court requested the Center and the Electoral Commission to respond with respect to the challenge to the constitutional validity of sections 8 and 9 of the Popular Law Representation Law.