New Delhi, Aug 5,2025: The Supreme Court today took note of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking permanent disqualification of Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) upon conviction in criminal cases, and directed that the matter be placed before the Chief Justice of India (CJI) BR Gavai for listing before an appropriate larger Bench.
The PIL, filed by Advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, challenges the constitutional validity of provisions under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which currently bar convicted legislators from contesting elections only for six years after completing their sentence.
Senior Advocate Vijay Hansaria mentioned the matter before a Bench of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, urging for an early hearing.
“This is a matter of grave concern. Orders have been passed from time to time. The February 10 order requires that it be listed before a three-judge bench,” Hansaria submitted.
The Bench acknowledged the urgency and referred to paragraphs 4 and 5 of the February 10, 2025 order passed by a Bench led by Justice Dipankar Datta, directing that the matter be placed before the CJI for further directions.
The plea is now expected to be heard finally on October 20, subject to the CJI’s listing.
In February 2025, the Union government opposed the plea, arguing that a lifetime disqualification of elected representatives was a matter purely within the domain of Parliament and not for the judiciary to decide.
The Centre, through the Legislative Department, maintained that while the court may declare a provision unconstitutional under its power of judicial review, it cannot rewrite legislation to substitute “lifetime” for “six years” as suggested by the petitioner.
“The relief sought effectively asks the Court to read ‘lifetime’ instead of ‘six years’ in all sub-sections of Section 8. This is unknown to judicial review and constitutional law,” the Centre submitted.
The government emphasized that Parliament has the discretion to decide what duration of disqualification is appropriate, keeping in view principles of proportionality and reasonableness. “It is one thing to say that Parliament has the power to impose a lifetime ban, and another to say that it must necessarily exercise that power in all cases,” it said.
The Centre further argued that the PIL failed to distinguish between the basis for disqualification (i.e., conviction) and the effect of disqualification (i.e., its duration). It noted that Indian penal statutes often impose time-bound restrictions on rights and freedoms post-conviction, and that extending these indefinitely would be unduly harsh and disproportionate.
“At the end of the prescribed time, penalties cease to operate automatically. Deterrence is ensured, while undue harshness is avoided,” the government stated.
It also reiterated that any direction to Parliament on how to draft or amend laws would be beyond the constitutional powers of the judiciary.
The PIL raises a larger question regarding the criminalisation of politics, an issue repeatedly flagged by the Supreme Court in the past.
The Court has, over the years, issued directions for the expeditious trial of criminal cases against lawmakers and for greater transparency in candidate disclosures.
As the matter now heads to a larger Bench, the decision could have far-reaching implications for electoral reforms, legislative accountability, and the scope of judicial intervention in matters of legislative policy.
