The noose apparently tightening around legislators with criminal antecedents has seen an increasing number of Uttar Pradesh MLAs lose their assembly membership after convictions carrying jail terms of two years or more.

On average, at least one member has lost membership of the state legislature in the past nearly 13.5 years. Those aware of the development said that 14 MLAs were disqualified in the past 13.5 years, covering the terms of the 16th (2012-2017), 17th (2017-2022) and the current 18th Vidhan Sabha (past 3.5 years).

A scrutiny of the cases of disqualification during the period suggests that though some members, including Uma Shankar Singh (in 2015) and Abbas Ansari (in 2025), got relief, the number of disqualified members has gone up over the years, bringing the issue of criminal antecedents of public representatives into focus.

Three MLAs were disqualified during the 16th, four in the 17th and five (till September 12, 2025) in the 18th Vidhan Sabha.

Although 14 disqualifications may seem small against the assembly’s sanctioned strength of 403, they assume greater significance as disqualifications following conviction have contributed to 28.57% of the total 21 seats declared vacant in the 18th Vidhan Sabha -- including 10 due to resignations by MLAs after their election to the Lok Sabha in 2024, and five deaths.

Amid the rising number of disqualifications, the Union government is contemplating a new law for removal of the Prime Minister, chief ministers and ministers if they remain in jail for more than 30 days for offences carrying a minimum sentence of five years.

According to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), 205 winning candidates out of 403 seats (51% of those elected to the 18th Vidhan Sabha) declared criminal cases against them. Another ADR report released in March 2025 indicated that 1,861 (45%) of the 4,092 MLAs from various state assemblies had declared criminal cases against them.

An ADR report also indicated that a record 251 of 543 MPs (46%) elected to the Lok Sabha in 2024 declared criminal cases against them. A sword of Damocles may thus be hanging over many such public representatives as trials in these cases may lead to disqualification of those convicted for two or more years.

The rising number of disqualifications following conviction is an obvious fallout of the Supreme Court’s July 10, 2013 judgment in Lily Thomas v Union of India and Lok Prahari v Union of India, which struck down sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

“The struck-down sub-section had allowed elected representatives to continue as MPs/MLAs if they filed an appeal. Once that provision was removed, disqualifications after conviction became inevitable,” said SN Shukla, general secretary of Lok Prahari and a retired IAS officer of the Uttar Pradesh cadre.

As dedicated MPs/MLAs courts have been set up to deal with cases of disqualification, the trials appear faster. Shukla said no separate order is required for disqualification and any MP/MLA stands disqualified if convicted for two years or more.

He said disqualifications are sometimes delayed in cases where the convicted member belongs to the ruling party. The delay, he added, allows the convicted member to get a stay from the courts against the conviction and thus continue as a member.

He cited the case of a Samajwadi Party minister who was disqualified following conviction and later got relief in 2015.

Bharatiya Janata Party UP vice-president and MLC Vijay Bahadur Pathak said there have to be norms to make politics clean. “Norms should be followed to establish political credibility, and the public representatives have to take the lead in this regard,” he said.

Congress Legislature Party leader Aradhana Mishra ‘Mona’ said there are already laws to disqualify public representatives if they are convicted, and there is no justification for enacting another law to remove chief ministers or ministers if they remain lodged in jail for 30 days.

Samajwadi Party spokesman and MLC Rajendra Chaudhary said there should be no hurry in disqualifying public representatives even if they are convicted. “Convicted public representatives should be allowed to challenge their convictions in courts first,” he said.

Chaudhary said this had been proved in the case of Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party MLA Abbas Ansari, who was disqualified and later had his membership restored following the Allahabad High Court’s stay on his conviction.

Ansari was disqualified following his conviction on May 31, 2025, in a hate speech case, and his membership was restored after the Allahabad HC stayed his conviction on August 20, 2025.

UP Assembly Speaker Satish Mahana was not available for comment.