Allowing convicts with up to 2-yr jail term contest polls requires scrutiny: HC

Source: hindustantimes.com

The Punjab and Haryana high court has said that a provision in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which allows a convict with up to two-year jail term to contest elections, requires scrutiny.

Seeking response from the Centre by November 6, the high court bench of justice Krishna Murari and justice Arun Palli observed: “Prima facie, there appears to be a force in the submission made and the issue requires scrutiny.” The high court was dealing with a public interest litigation (PIL) filed by a judicial clerk in the Supreme Court, Ganesh Khemkta, seeking quashing of the provision in the law arguing that the provision of segregating imprisonment terms of less than two years, as non-actionable grounds of disqualification, is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution, as it seeks to create an “artificial classification” in the same group.

The law does not take into account the nature of crime, instead decides on the basis of number of years a convict has been put to jail by a court. Section 11 of the Act has provisions under which the Election Commission of India can remove any disqualification or reduce the period of any such disqualification. Hence, Section 3 of the Act, which provides for non-disqualification of a convicted person awarded jail term of less than two years, should be set aside. The petitioner, who recently graduated from the National Law School of India University, Bangalore, had argued that in Lili Thomas vs Union of India case, the Supreme Court had observed that a disqualification which forecloses a candidate from being chosen as the member of the House will equally apply as a disqualification from holding the membership of the House. As a result, the law not only allows a convict to contest elections, but also allows a convicted member of the House to continue to hold seat, while serving his sentence.

It was further argued that the Supreme Court in K Prabhukarman vs P Jayarajan case observed that persons with criminal background pollute the process of election as they have no inhibition in indulging in criminality to gain success in an election. Demanding that provision be quashed, petitioner told the court that any and all criminal convictions are a ground for electoral disqualification.