Examine the tension between the right to contest elections and the need to uphold electoral ethics under the Representation of the People Act. Should there be a lifetime ban on convicted criminals?

RPA, 1950 and 1951 are the structural edifice of Article 325 and 326 that uphold electoral ethics and franchise rights.

Right to contest election

1. Belief in reformation and phoenix like goodness of judicial system. → BNS new vision.

2. Structural safeguards already persist per legislative width → Section 8, RPA with buffer period post conviction.

3. Adversarial model balanced with 'innocent until proven guilty' → Lily Thomas case.

4. Constitutionally enshrined right to contest cannot be arbitrarily circumvented.

But, electoral ethics key

1. Criminalisation of politics depletes quality of Parliament

2. Ethicality dictates presence of 'clean and integrity filled' leaders

1. Right to contest elections not absolute - Balanced with principles of uprightness @ Oaths of candidates standing for election.

2. Muscle power + money-power ban is crucial. Right to contest does not include right to corruption - Sita Soren case

Life time ban

No

• Feasibility improper
• right to reformation
• creation of 'fake FIRs' → innocents jailed

yes

• stringency as measure of deterrence
• upright leadership for effective probity exercise
• constitutional mandate requires upright individuals

Measures

1. Judicial activism → eg Sita Soren case
2. Parliamentary shaming by Public → increasing public accountability
3. Reducing profile of criminals in politics → Article 19(1)(a) inclusion of right to information of candidate