Central Government Affidavit in Supreme Court: The Central Government has told the Supreme Court that lifetime ban on politicians convicted in criminal cases will be strict and six years of ban are sufficient. In an affidavit filed in response to the petition filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who demanded a lifetime ban on the politicians convicted in criminal cases and a speedy disposal of criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the country, in an affidavit filed, the Central Government said that the period of disqualification is complete In various ways, it is in the jurisdiction of Parliament.

The Center said in the affidavit, “The question whether the life ban would be appropriate or not is completely in the jurisdiction of Parliament.” It states that the period of disqualification is “decided by the House” considering the principles of proportionality and logicity “.

What else did the central government say

It states that by limiting the fine to appropriate time, prevention was ensured while inappropriate rigidity was avoided. In his petition, Upadhyay has challenged Section 8 and 9 of the Representation of the Public Representation Act 1951. The government said in the affidavit that under Section 8 (1) of the Representation of the Public Representation Act, 1951, the duration of disqualification was six years from the date of conviction or in the case of imprisonment, six years from the date of release. Under Section 9, folk servants who have been dismissed for corruption or betrayal to the state will be disqualified for a period of five years from the date of such dismissal. Upadhyay had said that disqualification in both cases should be for a lifetime.

judicial review

In the affidavit, the Center said that nothing is unconstitutional about limiting the impact of punishment to a time and doing so is an established principle of law. It has been presented that the issues raised by the petitioner have widespread impacts and are clearly under the legislative policy of Parliament and proper changes will be made in the outline of judicial review in this regard.

Under the judicial review, the Center argued that the Supreme Court can only declare the laws unconstitutional, but cannot provide relief to the life ban sought by the petitioner.

‘Constitutionally correct’

The affidavit states that the current laws are “constitutionally strong” and “not suffering from additional delegation’s defect.” Citing Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution, it has been said, “The Constitution has left the area open to Parliament to enact such laws that control the disqualification, as it is appropriate. The duration of disqualification has the power to determine both. “

The Supreme Court said in April 2013 that MPs and MLAs who were sentenced to at least two years would be disqualified from the House immediately without giving three months time for appeal. The UPA government at the Center then carried forward an ordinance to deny it, which was strongly opposed by Congress leader Rahul Gandhi. Rahul Gandhi called the move “completely nonsense” and the ordinance was eventually canceled.

(Tagstotranslate) Modi Government (T) Paraliament (T) Central Government (T) Supreme Court (T) Criminal Cases Against mps and crops