In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the Centre contended that granting the relief sought in the petition would amount to altering the law or directing Parliament to legislate in a particular manner, which is beyond the scope of judicial review, reported PTI.
Read more: SC asks if Centre can frame policy to compensate people for COVID-19 vaccine-related deaths
“The question whether a life-time ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the Parliament,” the affidavit said.
The government further argued that penalties imposed on convicted lawmakers must be proportionate. By limiting disqualification to a specific period, the law ensures deterrence without imposing undue harshness, the affidavit added.
The plea, filed by advocates Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, calls for a lifetime ban on convicted politicians and the expedited resolution of criminal cases involving Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs).
Read more: Supreme Court stays NCLAT order asking NBCC to build stalled Supertech homes
The Centre emphasised that courts cannot challenge legislative decisions simply on the basis if their effectiveness, citing previous rulings by the Supreme Court. It referred to Section 8(1) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which disqualifies convicted individuals for six years from the date of their conviction or release from imprisonment.
“The disqualifications made under the impugned sections are limited by time as a matter of parliamentary policy and it would not be appropriate to substitute the petitioner’s understanding of the issue and impose a lifetime ban,” read the affidavit.
The government argued that Parliament alone has the discretion to impose lifetime disqualification, adding that merely because such power exists does not mean it must be exercised in every case.
Read more: Supreme Court rules medical body’s ‘both hands intact’ rule for MBBS aspirants as discriminatory
It further noted that Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution provide Parliament with the authority to determine the grounds and duration of disqualification, such as holding an office of profit, insolvency, or unsoundness of mind, are not permanent.
The Supreme Court had on February 10, sought from the Centre and the Election Commission on the plea challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act.
(With PTI inputs)
(Edited by : Ritesh, Priyanka Deshpande)
