- Hindi news
- National
- MP MLA Criminal Cases; Convicated Politicians Election Ban | Supreme Court
New Delhi4 minutes ago
- Copy link
The Center said- The demand for the petition is like writing the law again or instructing Parliament to enact a law in a particular way.
The Central Government has opposed the petition seeking a lifetime ban on the MLA-Sansadas to contest elections in the Supreme Court. The Center filed a reply and said- Applying such disqualification is completely in the jurisdiction of Parliament.
The Center said, ‘The demand for the petition is like writing the law again or instructing Parliament to enact a law in a particular way. This is completely contrary to the powers of judicial review.
Ed. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay has demanded in the petition that in addition to ending the criminal cases against MPs and MLAs in the country, a lifetime ban should be imposed on the guilty politicians.
The center said …
Lifetime disqualification is the maximum penalty that can be imposed under the provisions. The Parliament has such rights. It is different to say that a power exists and it is another to say that it should be compulsorily used in every case.
Center’s answer in Supreme Court …
- The impact of the issues raised by the petitioner is widespread. Those who clearly come under the legislative policy of Parliament. Necessary changes should be made in the outline of judicial review in this regard.
- The Supreme Court several times admitted that the impact of the legendary option on one or the other option cannot be questioned in the courts.
- The duration of disqualification under Section 8 (1) of the Representation of the Public Representation Act, 1951 was 6 years from the date of proving the charge or 6 years from the release date in the case of jail.
- Disqualification is limited to time in terms of parliamentary policy. It would not be right to re -establish the understanding of this issue of the petitioner and impose a lifetime ban.
- The court can declare the provisions unconstitutional in the case of judicial review. However, the relief from the petitioner demanded to read ‘lifetime’ instead of 6 years in all sub-sections of Section 8 of the Act.
Disputed law constitutionally correct
The Center said that the disputed law is constitutionally correct. And besides being within the powers of Parliament, additional delegation is not suffering from defects. The Parliament considers the principles of ratio and logic while applying any penalty.
For example- The Indian Code of Justice 2023 or Penal Act provides for a jail or fine to a few limits. And the reasoning behind this is that punitive measures will be co-related with the seriousness of the crime.
Petition failure to distinguish the basis of disqualification
The Center said that there are many punitive laws that make provisions to ban rights and use of freedom. Which are time-special in most cases. The petition has failed to make significant differences between the basis of the basis of disqualification and the impact of disqualification.
It is true that the basis of disqualification is conviction for a crime. And this base remains unchanged until the conviction persists. The effect of such conviction lasts for a certain period.
The center said …
The petitioner’s trust in Article 102 and 191 of the Constitution was completely wrong. Articles 102 and 191 of the Constitution are related to disqualification for the membership of any House, Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of Parliament.
Power to make laws in Article 102 and 191
Sections (E) of Article 102 and 191 give Parliament the power to make laws controlling disqualifications. And using this power, the Act of 1951 was enacted. The Constitution has left the field of making other laws to control the Parliament as appropriate.
Parliament has the power to determine both the basis of disqualification and the duration of disqualification. Articles include holding the position of profit, mentally unwell, bankruptcy and not a citizen of India. These are not permanent disqualifications.
The Supreme Court on 10 February sought a reply from the Center and the Election Commission on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of sections 8 and 9 of the Representation of the People Act.
………………………………………. Read this news related to the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court said- There is no age limit of testimony: 7 year old girl gave a statement, the mother’s killer father was sentenced to life imprisonment
The Supreme Court has said that the witness has no age limit. If a child is able to give a witness, then his testimony will be as valid as any other witness. In fact, the court sentenced the killer husband to life imprisonment on the basis of a 7 -year -old girl’s witness. The girl saw her father killing her mother. Read full news …
Leave a Reply