Author: Kusum Verma, IMS Law College
TO THE POINT
The article looks at the political and legal repercussions of disqualifying elected officials who have been found guilty of crimes. It examines whether automatic disqualification is a misuse of court processes or a tool for purging the political system. It also highlights constitutional provisions, judicial interpretations, and the significance of “criminalisation of politics.”
LEGAL JARGON
A legal restriction that forbids someone from holding public office for certain legal reasons is known as disqualification. The phenomenon known as “criminalisation of politics” refers to the entry and success of people with criminal histories in political institutions. The doctrine of severability is a method for declaring portions of a statute.
Unconstitutional without affecting the remaining portions.Electoral morality is a normative criterion that demands legislators abstain from grave criminal activity. Writ Petition: A formal written request for remedy under Article 32 or Article 226 submitted to a constitutional court.
THE PROOF
The number of MPs facing criminal charges has alarmingly increased in India. Nearly 43% of Lok Sabha Members of Parliament (MPs) have criminal cases in 2019, with roughly 29% involving major offences like rape, murder, and kidnapping, according to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). The qualifications and disqualifications of legislators are governed by the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA). According to Section 8 of the RPA, disqualification for a minimum of two years is required following conviction for certain offences. But in the past, Section 8(4) of the RPA permitted incumbent MPs and MLAs to stay in office while appeals were pending; however, the Supreme Court overturned this provision in the famous Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) ruling. This decision refocused attention on the ongoing issue of criminally charged politicians holding public office and the urgent reforms required to
preserve democratic integrity.
ABSTRACT
The legal and political circumstances surrounding an elected official’s disqualification due to a criminal conviction are examined in this article. It centres on the legislative provisions under the Representation of the People Act, the judiciary’s position in seminal rulings, and the constitutional mandate under Articles 102 and 191. It also examines the ethical and practical ramifications of prohibiting convicted politicians as well as the rebuttals about due process, electoral choice, and misuse. The goal of the article is to present a fair assessment of past rulings, current changes, and future directions for upholding the integrity of Indian democracy.
CASE LAW
Union of India v. Lily Thomas (2013) 7. SCC 653. The Supreme Court declared Section 8(4) of the RPA unconstitutional, ruling that any MP, MLA, or MLC found guilty of a felony and given a sentence of two years or more would be immediately removed from office Parliament cannot create exceptions that supersede the constitutional framework, the court affirmed.
Union of India v. Public Interest Foundation (2019) 3 SCC 224 The Court ordered political parties to extensively publicise their candidates’ criminal histories, but it declined to prohibit candidates who are facing criminal charges from running for office. It underlined the necessity of electoral reforms and voter education
State of Bihar v. Krishna Kumar Singh (2017)
3 SCC 1 While talking about the abuse of legislative power and how disqualification legislation shouldn’t be reduced through appeals, the court emphasised the value of the rule of law and constitutional supremacy.
4.Association for Democratic Reforms v.Union of India (2002) 5 SCC 294 The SC required that candidates disclose their assets, criminal histories, and educational backgrounds. It strengthened the Constitution’s Article 19(1)(a) right to know
5.Union of India v. Navtej Singh Johar (2018) 10 SCC 1 Although unrelated, the case illustrates how constitutional morality is being interpreted, a notion that is becoming more and more important in election jurisprudence with regard to disqualifications.
CONCLUSION
A crucial component of India’s democratic process, the disqualification of guilty lawmakers is closely related to public trust and the legitimacy of government. The Lily Thomas ruling from the Supreme Court established a precedent for automatic disqualification and was a significant step towards decriminalising politics. But there are still issues, especially with politicians who are awaiting trial but are not disqualified because of court delays.Legislative action is desperately needed. For example, the RPA should be amended to exclude candidates who are facing serious charges from running for office, as long as the charges are framed by a court.
However, protecting against political grudges and guaranteeing due process are as crucial. To preserve the constitutional principles of honesty, responsibility, and the rule of law in public service, electroal reforms, strong voter awareness campaigns, and prompt legal proceedings are necessary.troal reforms, strong voter awareness campaigns, and prompt legal proceedings are necessary.
FAQS
Q1. Under the RPA, what is the minimal penalty for a legislator to be disqualified?
Ans.Disqualification results from certain offences under Section 8 of the RPA that carry a minimum sentence of two years in prison.
Q2. Does an MP or MLA lose their Eligibility due to a conviction? Ans.Conviction For offences carrying a term of two years or more results in instant disqualification Following the Lily Thomas ruling.
Q3. During the appeal process, is it possible for a convicted politician to run for office?
Ans .Not at all. They lose their right to appeal immediately after being found guilty and given a sentence of two years or more, unless a higher court stays the verdict.
Q4.Is it illegal for politicians who are facing criminal accusations to run for office?
Ans.Conviction, not only the filing of charges, is the only way to be disqualified under Indian law at the moment. In the Public Interest Foundation case, the Supreme Court declined to enact legislation in this field.
Q5. What changes are recommended to stop politics from being criminalised?
Ans: Reforms Include accelerating political trials, excluding candidates facing serious charges, improving voter education, and enforcing stronger transparency requirements.
