With nearly half of India’s lawmakers facing criminal charges, the apex court is once again confronting the thorny question: Should convicted candidates be barred for life from contesting elections—or do they deserve a second chance?
The contentious question of whether convicted politicians should face a lifetime ban from contesting elections is back under the Supreme Court’s microscope. A batch of petitions urging the apex court to impose such a ban is being heard, with the central government pushing back strongly in favour of leniency, proposing instead a six-year disqualification period after the completion of a sentence.
A bench headed by Justice Dipankar Datta has asked the Election Commission to file its response within two weeks, though the poll body is yet to comply. Meanwhile, the central government has already made its stance clear via an affidavit, arguing that a lifetime ban would be excessively harsh and violate Article 14, which guarantees equality before law. According to the government, the matter falls squarely within Parliament’s jurisdiction, and the Court should steer clear of imposing a ban that has wide political ramifications.
At a hearing on February 10, the bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan expressed surprise, bluntly questioning how individuals convicted in criminal cases can return to the legislature at all.
The gravity of the issue is underscored by data presented to the Court by petitioner Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which revealed that 225 out of 544 Lok Sabha members currently face criminal cases. The petitions also challenged the interpretation of Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution, which govern disqualifications for MPs and MLAs.
Major General Anil Verma, head of ADR, told India Legal: “Over the years, the number of candidates with criminal cases has steadily risen. Despite multiple Supreme Court judgments and recommendations from committees and commissions decrying this trend, political parties remain unbothered. Today, 30-35 percent of candidates fielded by all parties have criminal backgrounds. Money and muscle power remain a winning formula.” He added: “Even if a lifetime ban is considered too severe, courts must at least ensure that candidates charged with heinous crimes—where cognizance has already been taken—are automatically disqualified from contesting elections.”
The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), which governs electoral disqualifications, currently bars convicted individuals from contesting for six years after completing their sentence. Section 9 adds that public servants dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the state lose eligibility for five years.
Former Chief Election Commissioner TS Krishnamurthy, while speaking to India Legal, proposed a middle path: “For heinous crimes like murder, rape, criminal assault, or sedition, a lifetime ban could be justified. If the government feels that’s too harsh, then at the very least, the disqualification period should be extended to 10-15 years, depending on the case.”
Comparative examples from other democracies show that lifetime bans are rare. In the United States, voting and candidacy rights vary by state, with some restoring rights after completion of the sentence.
In the United Kingdom, individuals sentenced to more than a year in prison can’t contest while in custody, but no permanent disqualification exists. In Canada, convicted persons can contest after serving their sentence—unless explicitly barred by Parliament.
With political parties across the spectrum keen to protect their own, the issue ultimately lands in the government’s court, which will need to balance political pragmatism with the long-term health of Indian democracy. Ironically, this is one rare issue where parties of all stripes quietly agree: protecting tainted candidates serves them all.
SUPREME COURT VERDICTS ON CLEAN POLITICS
1. Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013)
MPs, MLAs, and MLCs are immediately disqualified upon criminal conviction—no waiting for appeals.
2. Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India (2018)
Candidates facing serious criminal charges must publicly disclose their criminal records in election affidavits. The apex court left the lifetime ban decision to Parliament.
3. Manoj Narula vs Union of India (2014)
The apex court emphasized constitutional morality, urging parties to act responsibly when choosing candidates—but imposed no legal bar.
4. Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
Voters’ right to know criminal records of candidates was established. However, the apex court did not extend this to lifetime bans.