New Delhi: The Centre on Wednesday, February 26, opposed a plea in the Supreme Court regarding the life ban on convicted politicians, citing that the decision falls under the domain of the Parliament.

In an affidavit submitted to the Apex Court, the Centre asserted that the provisions of the Representation of People Act are constitutionally valid, do not involve excessive delegation, and fall within Parliament's legislative authority. It further emphasised that all laws enacted by the Legislature are presumed to be constitutional.

The Centre's response followed a SC directive in a PIL filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who sought a lifetime ban on convicted politicians and the speedy resolution of criminal cases involving MPs and MLAs.

The Centre argued that the petitioner's request amounts to rewriting the law or directing Parliament on legislation, which exceeds judicial review. It emphasised that courts cannot mandate Parliament to create laws or legislate in a specific manner.

Regarding a lifetime ban, the Centre maintained that such decisions fall exclusively within Parliament's domain. It stated that limiting penalties to a reasonable duration ensures deterrence while preventing excessive punishment.

Referring to the 2014 Manoj Narula vs Union of India case, the Centre noted that while the SC raised concerns about criminality in politics, it also stressed the need for judicial restraint, affirming that courts cannot determine election qualifications or disqualifications.

"A lifetime disqualification is the maximum that can be imposed under the provisions and to impose such a disqualification is certainly within the power of Parliament. However, it is one thing to say that power exists and another to say that it must necessarily be exercised in every case," the affidavit said as per a report by Live Law.

The Centre noted that a similar plea by NGO Lok Prahari is already pending in the SC, with the government opposing it in a November 2023 affidavit.

It emphasised that the petitioner misunderstood the difference between the basis and effect of disqualification. While conviction remains the basis for disqualification, its effect lasts for a limited time, which is not unconstitutional.

The affidavit cited Section 8(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, stating that disqualification lasts six years from conviction or, in case of imprisonment, six years post-release.