By The Sampadak Express
Highlighting the issue of the “criminalisation of politics,” the Supreme Court raised concerns over how individuals convicted in criminal cases could re-enter Parliament. A bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan sought the assistance of India’s Attorney General on the matter during a hearing on Monday.
The case stems from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, which calls for a lifetime ban on convicted politicians and the swift disposal of criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs. The court also sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission within three weeks regarding the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of People Act.
The bench questioned, “Once a conviction is upheld, how can someone return to Parliament or the legislature? There’s also a conflict of interest, as convicted individuals would be involved in vetting laws.” The court also compared this situation to that of government employees, who are deemed unsuitable for service if convicted of corruption or disloyalty but may still hold ministerial positions.
Acknowledging a previous Supreme Court ruling calling for the speedy disposal of criminal cases against lawmakers, the bench noted that it would be inappropriate for the current bench to revisit the matter. Consequently, the issue will be brought before Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna for consideration by a larger bench.
Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, assisting the court as amicus curiae, pointed out that despite the court’s orders and high court monitoring, a significant number of criminal cases against lawmakers remain unresolved. He argued that the PIL seeks to expedite these cases and challenges the constitutional validity of Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, which limits disqualification for a convicted person to six years. The petition also asks whether a convicted individual can form or hold office in a political party.
Hansaria noted that in 2017, the Supreme Court had directed the establishment of 12 special courts in 10 states to expedite the trial of MPs and MLAs. Despite this, progress has been slow, with 42% of sitting Lok Sabha members facing pending criminal charges. He cited reasons for the delay, including the diversion of special courts to non-MP/MLA cases, repeated adjournments, and delays in issuing witness summons.
Justice Manmohan, however, cautioned against generalizing the situation, pointing to the unique challenges faced by trial courts. He emphasized the need for a detailed examination of the reasons for the delays.
In the hearing, senior advocate Vikas Singh, representing Upadhyay, argued that lawmakers never intended for individuals convicted of serious crimes like rape or murder, and who served short sentences, to be elected as MPs or MLAs. He pointed out that nearly half of the individuals facing charges like kidnapping, rape, and murder are able to return to Parliament due to shorter sentences, a scenario he believes was never the intention when drafting the law.
Hansaria’s affidavit revealed that 4,732 criminal cases were pending against lawmakers, including 892 cases registered in 2024. Despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 directive for high courts to set up special benches for monitoring the expeditious disposal of these cases, progress has remained minimal.
