The central government filed an anti-devote in the Supreme Court on Wednesday against a petition calling for a lifetime prohibition of politicians from running for elections after being convicted in a criminal case.
The government says the duration of disqualification is strictly within the area of legislative policy. On-site law Report. The claim was filed in an affidavit filed in a 2016 petition filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyaya, which challenged the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the People’s Law of 1951.
“The question of whether a lifetime ban is appropriate is a question that is entirely located within the parliamentary realm,” the Centre said in its anti-judicial action.
Under Article 8, a convicted person is sentenced to jail for six years on charges of disqualification. Similarly, Article 9 provides that from the date of dismissal, public officials are corruption or disloyal to the state for corruption or disloyalty.
However, the petitioner believes that such disqualification should be extended to a life-long ban.
Taking into account the principle of proportion and rationality, the duration of disqualification is determined by the Parliament. “By limiting the operation of fines to the appropriate time, deterrence can be ensured without excessive harsh conditions,” the center said.
The Centre insists that the controversial provisions are “constitutionally reasonable” and are not troubled by “superbable delegations”, thus asserting that they are well part of parliamentary legislative powers.
It also believes that the relief sought by the petitioner is essentially rewriting the law by replacing it with “lifetime” in Section 8 of the People’s Law with “lifetime” in Section 8 of 1951. This method. The government believes that it is neither recognized in judicial review nor is it consistent with any established constitutional principles.
“The petitioner’s prayer is to rewrite the regulations or direct the Parliament to construct the law in a special way, which is completely beyond the power of judicial review. The court cannot guide the Parliament to make laws that are clichés or legislate in a specific way,” the government said.
In addition, the government also stressed that numerous criminal laws impose time restrictions on disqualification. It added: “Limiting the impact of punishment to the lack of inherent unconstitutionality in a given period.”
