The Supreme Court on Monday seeks the assistance of Attorney General R Venkataramani in a petition advocating for a lifelong ban on individuals convicted of criminal offenses from contesting elections for the Parliament and State Assemblies.

The Court was hearing an interim application (IA) filed in 2017 by lawyer and activist Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, challenging the validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951 (RP Act). Upadhyay specifically questioned the constitutionality of these provisions, which disqualify convicted individuals from holding elected positions for only a limited period.

Given that the matter involves the constitutional validity of statutory provisions, a bench comprising Justices Dipankar Datta and Manmohan directed the Attorney General to address the Court on the issue.

Additionally, the Bench sought responses from the central government and the Election Commission of India (ECI) within three weeks. The Court also allowed state governments to submit their views, provided they do so in a timely manner.

Upadhyay’s IA is part of a larger public interest litigation (PIL) addressing the criminalization of politics. Among other requests, the plea also calls for the expeditious disposal of criminal cases pending against MPs and MLAs.

In 2023, a three-judge Bench, led by then-Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud, had issued a detailed ruling on the need for speedy trials of legislators. While acknowledging concerns over the slow progress of such cases, Justices Datta and Manmohan opined that revisiting the issue would be inappropriate, given the prior ruling by a larger Bench. Consequently, this aspect was referred to CJI Sanjiv Khanna for consideration by an appropriate Bench.

However, the Division Bench of Justices Datta and Manmohan will proceed with examining the validity of Sections 8 and 9 of the RP Act. The Bench also permitted certain amendments to the original IA filed in 2017.

Senior Advocate Vikas Singh appeared on behalf of Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. Amicus Curiae Vijay Hansaria also presented arguments, questioning whether recognized national political parties—entitled to reserved election symbols—should be allowed to have convicted criminals as office bearers.

Hansaria emphasized that this issue extends beyond the validity of Sections 8 and 9 and the expeditious disposal of MP/MLA cases. He remarked:
"Today, the law allows a person convicted of murder to serve as the chairman of a nationally recognized political party. This is a serious issue that requires judicial scrutiny."

Advocate Sidhant Kumar, representing the ECI, sought permission to file a response to the amended IA challenging Sections 8 and 9 of the RP Act, which the Court granted. The Bench remarked:
"Criminalization of politics is a serious concern. The Election Commission must have deliberated on this and should propose a better solution than what has been presented before us."

The Court indicated its intent to issue a comprehensive ruling on the matter. During the hearing, the Bench observed:
"Mr. Upadhyay, your goal of decriminalizing politics is essential for the country. However, this should not be a half-baked exercise. Otherwise, people will feel they are being misled."

The case is scheduled for the next hearing on March 4.