The Center has opposed in the Supreme Court the amended PIL that seeks the imposition of a life ban on convicted politicians from participating in elections, saying that elected representatives are equally bound by law. BJP leader and lawyer Ashwini Upadhyay, in his amended PIL, has called for a lifetime ban on convicted persons, including politicians, from participating in elections against the six-year ban from the date of release after serving prison terms of two years or more as provided by the Representation of the People Act (RPA).
The Ministry of Justice, in its affidavit, said: “It is argued that the request for amendment is unfounded and does not justify the challenge of the vires of the legal provisions of the RPA of 1951.”
The affidavit, submitted through the ministry official, S Mahesh Babu, said that the amended application does not indicate the existence of any conclusive and factual material to support the argument that the challenged provisions are unconstitutional and ultra vires.
“Elected representatives are normally bound by oath that they have taken to serve the citizens of their particular constituency and the country in general. Their conduct is subject to decorum and good conscience. Elected representatives are not above the law and they are also subject to provisions of various statutes in force. Hence, there is no distinction between public servants and elected representatives, “he indicated.
The Center has also referred to the fact that the higher court, in its judgment in Public Interest Foundation v Union of India, had already dealt with this aspect and, in addition, the legislature had clearly listed the grounds for disqualification of a elected representative. . Earlier, a bank headed by Judge NV Ramana had requested the Center’s response to Upadhyay’s amended statement.
Instruct Respondent-1 (Center) to take the appropriate measures to establish Special Tribunals to resolve cases related to representatives of the people and public servants within a year and implement the important electoral reforms, proposed by the National Review Commission of the Functioning of the Constitution, the Law Commission of India in its report 244 and 255 and the Elections Commission said one of the amended sentences.
The new petition has also sought a direction for the Center to take appropriate measures to exclude the person convicted of the crimes specified in some provisions of the Representation of the People Act (RPA) from contesting MLA or MP elections, form a political party or become a political party office holder.
The statement has also sought some changes to the RPA provisions to ensure that politicians do not get special relief, such as participating in elections after six years have elapsed after conviction and sentencing. That when a member of the Executive / Judicial Power is convicted of even a misdemeanor, he is barred from his services for life. But a legislator, convicted even of heinous crimes such as murder, rape, smuggling, money laundering, maliciousness, etc., is only excluded from contesting the election for only six years, which is why sections 8 and 9 of the RPA go into contrary to the spirit of article 14 basic structure of the Constitution.
“Also, a convicted person, by standing behind the bar, can form his own political party or become the officer in charge of the political party,” Upadhyay said in his guilty plea. The high court has been approving various instructions for fast track trials so that MLAs and MPs facing charges can get a quick decision from the courts.
The high court has been told that politicians face criminal trials in 4,442 cases across the country and, of these, deputies and practicing lawmakers are on trial in up to 2,556 such cases. He has been grappling with Upadhyay’s petition seeking various reliefs, including the imposition of a lifetime ban on convicted politicians.
.
