Permanent Disqualification Of Convicted Politicians? Amicus Curiae Tells Supreme Court Six-Year Ban Inadequate

Days after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case on convicted politicians' eligibility to contest elections, amicus curiae Vijay Hansaria informed the court on Thursday (14 September) that while government employees are dismissed upon conviction, politicians in similar situations are only disqualified for six years.

Hansaria, a senior advocate assisting the court in expediting trials in criminal cases against current and former MPs/MLAs, pointed out the discrepancy.

“As per service rules applicable to central government and state government employees, a person convicted for any offence involving moral turpitude is liable to be dismissed from service," he said.

"Even a Class IV employee would be terminated from service, once convicted, for an offence involving moral turpitude, not to speak of Class I, II and III employees and persons holding any office under the All-India Services Act, 1951, and the Rules framed thereunder," Hansaria said, reports Times of India.

The amicus provided a list of statutory authorities such as the Central Vigilance Commission and NHRC, which prohibit individuals convicted of offenses involving moral turpitude from becoming members or chairpersons to highlight the contrasting treatment of convicted politicians under the law.

According to Hansaria, it was clearly unfair that convicted individuals could hold positions in Parliament and assemblies.

Hansaria was recently told by a bench headed by CJI D Y Chandrachud that it would separate the challenge to the validity of Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act from expediting trials against politicians.

Interestingly, in December 2020, the Centre discouraged the Supreme Court from testing the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the RP Act, rejecting any comparison between government servants and politicians.

Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act disqualifies individuals from contesting elections from the date of completing the sentence of two or more years awarded to him after being convicted in a criminal case.

In 2020, the Union government argued against the Supreme Court testing the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of the RP Act, stating that elected representatives, although public servants, do not have specific "service conditions" like government servants.

"They are ordinarily bound by the oath that they have taken, to serve the citizens of the country," the Centre had said.

“They are already bound by the disqualifications in terms of RP Act as well as various directions and precedents as laid down by the SC from time to time.” It added.

“In so far as the conditions of service of public servants, not being elected representatives, is concerned, the same is regulated by their respective service laws, including recruitment rules. Thus, there is no justification for the challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 8(3) of RP Act," it said.