Lok Sabha (Representational Image) Photo: PTI Lok Sabha (Representational Image) Photo: PTI Opposing a petition seeking a lifetime ban on politicians from contesting elections following conviction in criminal cases222nk, the Centre on Wednesday submitted a counter-affidavit in the Supreme Court.
According to Live Law, in the counter-affidavit, the Centre argued that a lifetime ban on politicians convicted in criminal cases would be harsh. Instead, the six-year disqualification, which is currently in practice, is enough to act as a deterrent.
The demolition began at 5 am and was conducted amid heavy police presence and was part of a drive to clear unauthorized constructions behind the temple and near the circuit house area. Officials reported that approximately 102 acres of land, valued at around Rs 320 crore, were cleared during the 12-hour operation.
"North Bengal is reeling under flood. Districts such as Cooch Behar, Jalpaiguri and Alipurduar have been affected. Due to heavy rain in catchment areas of Kosi river, places in Bihar,89vip slots and Malda and Dakshin Dinajpur districts of West Bengal will be affected in the near future," she said on her way to Siliguri.
What Was The Centre's Affidavit About?The Centre on Wednesday submitted the affidavit in response to a petition filed by lawyer Ashwini Upadhyaya in 2016 challenging the constitutional validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
According to Live Law, Section 8 states that a person convicted of specified offences faces disqualification for six years following the completion of their jail term. Similarly, Section 9 stipulates that public servants dismissed for corruption or disloyalty to the State shall be barred from eligibility for five years from the date of dismissal.
However, the petitioner argued that such disqualification should be extended to a lifetime ban.
ternopg What Did The Centre Say?The duration of a convicted politician's disqualification is generally decided by Parliament considering the principles of proportionality and reasonableness.
"The question of whether a lifetime ban would be appropriate or not is a question that is solely within the domain of the parliament. By confining the operation of the penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence is ensured while undue harshness is avoided," the Centre argued in its counter-affidavit.
The Centre Aalso maintained that the contested provisions are "constitutionally sound" and do not suffer from "excess delegation", asserting that they fall well within the legislative authority of Parliament."The prayer of the Petitioner amounts to the re-writing of the statute or directing Parliament to frame a law in a particular manner which is wholly beyond the powers of judicial review. It is trite law that the Courts cannot direct Parliament to make a law or to legislate in a particular way222nk," the government said.
