Disqualifications under the Representation Of People Act

Abstract

The Representation of the People Act, 1951, a significant piece of legislation outlined in Articles 324 to 328 of the Indian Constitution, regulates the conduct of elections across the nation. This act grants the authority to legislate and establish rules for elections to both Parliament and state legislatures. Moreover, it establishes criteria related to the eligibility and disqualification of electoral candidates. Part XV of the constitution includes the RPA Act 1951, which was enacted by the Indian provincial parliament ahead of the inaugural general elections in 1952. This act serves the purpose of preventing certain individuals with criminal backgrounds from participating in elections, thus safeguarding national security and ensuring the smooth operation of democracy. It also prohibits the use of unlawful tactics during elections and, simultaneously, promotes transparency and inclusivity within the electoral process.

Introduction

Disqualification of candidates under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is contingent upon the conviction of individuals for specific offenses. Section 8 of the act delineates the grounds for disqualification, and it is essential to emphasize that the pivotal element triggering disqualification is indeed a “conviction.” In this context, a “conviction” signifies that the charges brought against an individual have been adjudicated and found to be valid by a court of law. In essence, it is only when a person is formally found guilty of the prescribed offenses in a court of law that they become disqualified from contesting elections under the act.

Addressing and discouraging criminality in politics is crucial for any large democracy like India. The electoral process in a country as vast and diverse as India is indeed a monumental undertaking, and part of this responsibility involves carefully scrutinizing the backgrounds of political candidates who aspire to lead the nation. Allowing dishonest legislators with criminal records to attain power poses a significant threat to the integrity of any democratic system.

The Representation of the People Act, 1951, plays a pivotal role in decriminalizing politics and upholding the principles of free and fair elections. By disqualifying individuals convicted of specific offenses, the act aims to break the nexus between crime and political power. This helps in ensuring that individuals with questionable backgrounds and criminal records do not hold influential positions in the government. Ultimately, this contributes to the preservation of the democratic values and principles upon which India’s political system is built.

The Representation of the People Act, 1951, serves as an essential tool in safeguarding democracy by preventing individuals with criminal backgrounds from wielding political power, thereby promoting transparency, fairness, and the overall health of the democratic process in India.

Punishments for Disqualifications Offences

Under the Indian Penal Code, various sections of the law result in disqualification for political candidacy. These include:

Section 153A: Promoting enmity between different groups of people based on factors such as caste, religion, or place of birth, which disrupts social harmony.
Sections 171E and 171F: Offenses related to bribery, undue influence, or personation during elections.
Section 376: Offense of rape.
Section 498: Cruelty towards a woman by her husband or relatives.
Section 505: Making controversial and hate-provoking statements related to religion, communities, or classes.

Civil rights offenses that lead to disqualification include:

Promoting or practicing “untouchability,” which is abolished under Article 17 of the Constitution.
Committing offenses that contradict the Civil Rights Act of 1955.
Section 7 of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988: Violation of this act results in the dismissal of political candidacy.
Contravention of acts that lead to disqualification includes:
Conviction for the breach of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, and the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987.
Demeaning the Indian National Flag or Constitution under the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971.

Offenses related to customs include:

Exporting or importing prohibited items under the Customs Act, 1962, Section 11.
Contravention of the Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act, 1973.
Terrorism and unlawful activities that lead to disqualification encompass:
Promoting terrorism or being a member of an unlawful association, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, and the Terrorist and Disruptive (Prevention) Act, 1987.
Hoarding, profiteering, and adulteration of certain items resulting in disqualification include violations of:
The Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985.
The Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Hoarding essential commodities mentioned under the Essential Commodity Act, 1955, or engaging in adulteration as defined by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954.

Imprisonment:

A person sentenced to two or more years of imprisonment is disqualified from the date of conviction until six years after release, even if on bail or awaiting appeal.
Under Section 9 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a person found guilty of corrupt practices may be disqualified, with the specific disqualification period determined by the President.
A person holding a government office, if convicted for corruption or disloyalty towards the state, is disqualified for a period of five years.

Regarding government offices and agreements:

Individuals serving as managers, secretaries, or managing agents of any company or corporation that has 25 percent or more capital share from the Central Government are disqualified from contesting elections for as long as they hold such office.
Individuals engaged in trade and business contracts with the Central Government are disqualified from contesting elections for the duration of the contract’s existence.
Failure to disclose election expenses as mandated can lead to disqualification. If the Election Commission discovers that a candidate has not reported election expenses as required, and there is no reasonable justification for this failure, the candidate may face disqualification.

The Case Against Rahul Gandhi

In 2014, Rahul Gandhi, the former President of the Indian National Congress, made allegations in a speech where he claimed that the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), a right-wing Hindu nationalist organization, was responsible for the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi. In response to these allegations, an RSS worker named Rajesh Kunte filed a defamation case against Rahul Gandhi.

In 2019, a court in Bhiwandi, Maharashtra, found Rahul Gandhi guilty of defamation and sentenced him to six months in jail, along with a fine of Rs. 5,000. Rahul Gandhi appealed this verdict to the Bombay High Court, which granted him bail and suspended his sentence pending appeal. However, it’s important to note that the court did not stay the disqualification order, which meant that Rahul Gandhi was barred from contesting elections or holding public office for a period of two years.

The basis for Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification was Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, which outlines the disqualification of individuals convicted of offenses punishable by imprisonment for two years or more. Despite the suspension of his sentence pending appeal, the fact that he had been convicted of an offense carrying a potential prison term of two years or more led to his disqualification from contesting elections or holding public office.

Other Case Laws Representations

The interpretation of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act has been the subject of several important previous cases, as mentioned:

Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): In this case, the Supreme Court of India upheld the constitutionality of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act. The case centered on a challenge to the validity of Section 8 on the grounds that it violated the right to equality under Article 14 of the Constitution. The court ruled that Section 8’s purpose was to ensure that individuals with a criminal record were not elected to public office, and this objective was deemed legitimate in a democratic society. The court also held that categorizing individuals with a criminal record as a distinct class for disqualification purposes was reasonable and did not infringe upon the right to equality.

K Prabhakaran v. P. Jayarajan (2013): The Kerala High Court held that a person who had been sentenced to imprisonment for six months or more, even if the sentence was suspended, was disqualified from being elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act. The case revolved around the disqualification of P. Jayarajan, a Member of the Legislative Assembly from Kerala, who had received a six-month imprisonment sentence in an assault case. The court determined that Jayarajan was disqualified from holding public office under Section 8 of the Act.

S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994): In this case, the Supreme Court of India ruled that the power to disqualify an individual from serving as a Member of Parliament or a Member of a Legislative Assembly under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act constituted a quasi-judicial power that must be exercised fairly and impartially. The case involved a challenge to the disqualification of S.R. Bommai, a Member of Parliament from Karnataka, who had been disqualified on the grounds of defection. The court emphasized the importance of exercising this power in a just and unbiased manner.

Remedies Available Against Disqualifications

Disqualified candidates have the right to challenge the grounds of their disqualification in the respective high courts within their jurisdictions. They can also appeal to the Supreme Court if needed.
Election results can be contested by filing an election petition. If a voter or a candidate suspects malpractices during the election process, they can approach the autonomous regulatory body, the Election Commission, to address their concerns.
Section 11 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, empowers the Election Commission (EC) to remove or reduce any disqualification, except when the conviction is held under section 8A.
Candidates disqualified under section 8A (for corrupt practices) have the option to submit an appeal to the President for the removal of their conviction and disqualification. Before making a decision, the President seeks advice from the EC and acts in accordance with their recommendations. Essentially, the President’s decision regarding disqualification of a member post-election to Parliament is based on the EC’s advice.
Defection, defined as a legislator changing the party from which they were elected, can also lead to disqualification. This is covered under the tenth schedule of the Indian Constitution. The authority for the disqualification process lies with the Speaker or Chairman of the house. Disqualified legislators, like other disqualified individuals, have the right to appeal the verdict in higher courts.
Previously, according to section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, members of parliament and legislative assemblies were exempted from disqualification for a period of three months while their appeal process was ongoing. However, after the Lily Thomas vs. Union of India case, this section was declared unconstitutional. It was observed that MPs and MLAs were misusing the delayed court proceedings to continue their active participation in parliamentary politics.

Conclusion

The disqualification of Rahul Gandhi as a Member of Parliament under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act has indeed sparked controversy and debate in India. Here’s a balanced summary of the key arguments:

Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act is clear in its stipulation that individuals convicted of offenses carrying a potential sentence of two years or more shall be disqualified from holding public office. In Rahul Gandhi’s case, he was convicted of defamation, which can indeed result in a sentence of two years or more. Therefore, from a legal standpoint, his disqualification aligns with the law. The underlying purpose of Section 8(3) is to uphold the integrity of the democratic process. It seeks to prevent individuals with criminal records from assuming public office, which can be seen as a reasonable aim in any democracy. Disqualifying those convicted of serious offenses is a means to maintain public trust and credibility in the political system.

Critics argue that the defamation case and subsequent disqualification of Rahul Gandhi were politically motivated. They suggest that the ruling party may have used legal processes strategically to silence opposition voices. This raises concerns about the potential misuse of legal mechanisms for political gain. Some raise questions about the fairness of the trial and the validity of the conviction. They argue that the judgment might have been based on technicalities rather than substantial evidence, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the conviction. The fact that the High Court granted bail and suspended the sentence pending appeal hints at doubts regarding the conviction’s strength. It is essential to strike a balance between upholding legal provisions like Section 8(3) to maintain the democratic process’s integrity and ensuring that elected representatives are not unfairly disqualified based on potentially questionable convictions. Protecting the right to a fair trial and due process is crucial in preserving the democratic values and principles of justice.

The disqualification of elected representatives should be handled carefully to prevent any misuse for political purposes while upholding the rule of law and democratic principles. The debate over Rahul Gandhi’s disqualification highlights the need for transparency, fairness, and a robust legal system that ensures justice is served while respecting the rights of elected officials.