• As a precautionary health measure for all our partners, associates & employees in light of COVID-19, we are operating with a limited access to work infrastructure and hence there might be delay in services. Your cooperation is highly appreciated.


    This web-site http://www.atharvalegal.com ("Website") is a public resource for general information about Atharva Legal.

    The material on our Web site has been prepared and published for general information only. There is no effort or intention to solicit new clients or new engagements from existing clients by way of this web site. The information contained in this web site is provided by Atharva Legal as general information which may or may not reflect the most current legal developments. This information is not intended to constitute, and should not be considered, legal reference or legal advice. Atharva Legal does not sponsor reliance upon, or accept responsibility for the information Atharva Legal provides or for the way in which this information should be used, or any actions taken in consequence of the use of such information. Moreover, Atharva Legal doesn't give any guarantees, undertaking or warranties concerning the accuracy, completeness or up-to-date nature of the information provided on this website. Communication of information by or through this web site and your receipt or use of such information is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship with Atharva Legal or any of the Firm's attorneys. The creation of the attorney-client relationship would require direct, personal contact between you and our firm through one or more attorneys and would also require an explicit agreement in the form of an "engagement letter" by the firm that confirms that an attorney-client relationship is established and the terms of that relationship. You should not act or rely upon information contained in the website without specifically seeking professional legal advice. The description anywhere on this website of the results of any specific case or transaction does not mean or suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other matter. Each legal matter should be considered on the unique facts of each case. Atharva Legal has endeavored to comply with all applicable legal and ethical requirements in compiling this site. Under no circumstances will Atharva Legal undertake any engagement that conflicts with any ethical, statutory or other requirement applicable to the performance of professional legal services. If you wish to discuss potential legal representation with us, please use the "contact us" link. Although we are pleased to communicate with you, you should not rely upon transmission of an e-mail through this web site to create an attorney-client relationship. Without an attorney-client relationship in the particular matter, we cannot assure that your communications via the web site will be privileged or that we will treat it as privileged, unless we reach an explicit agreement otherwise. Therefore, please do not send confidential or sensitive information to us by e-mail through this web site. Atharva Legal doesn't assume any liability or responsibility for any errors or omissions in the content of this site, or any termination or suspension of this site, and further disclaims any liability of any nature for any loss howsoever caused in connection with using this website. The materials published on this website are unless otherwise stated the copyright works of Atharva Legal You may make copies of materials published which are of interest to you for your own personal use and you may also provide occasional copies to others for information purposes only provided that you do so free of charge and the copies do not comprise substantial parts of the website. When you do make copies for yourself or others, the content of the published material and the copyright notices must remain intact, your communication of the content must not be misleading or inaccurate and a copy of this notice must accompany any copies of the materials which you provide to others. You may not create a link to any part of our website, without our prior written consent. No other use of the materials published on this website is permitted without the express prior written consent of Atharva Legal


    By proceeding further and clicking on the "I Agree" button herein below, I acknowledge that I of my own accord wish to know more about Atharva Legal for my own information and use. I further acknowledge that there has been no solicitation, invitation or inducement of any sort whatsoever from Atharva Legal or any of its members to create an Attorney-Client relationship through this website. I further acknowledge having read and understood the Disclaimer below.


    understanding the arbitrariness of election commission vide section 11 r/w section 8 of the representation of peoples act 1951

    Aug 05, 2020.

    By Shreenath Khemka, Partner Atharva Legal LLP

    Democracy is the edifice of the Indian Constitution, and the electoral process is its cornerstone. With political experience, it has become evident that democratic success lies in the quality of choice presented to the electorate. The foremost challenge therein has been to keep criminals out of the political system. Whilst specific guidance existed for eighty-sixing criminals from the electorate, under Article 326; no corollary guidance existed for the candidates under Article 102 and 191. Notwithstanding, the Parliament enacted the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 under Articles 102 (1)(e) and 191 (1)(e) read with Article 327.

    Section 8 of the 1951 Act disqualified convicts from contesting elections for the period of their sentence, and 6 years therefrom. The reason for the additional 6 years' punitive disqualification or cooling-off period was identified in the Law Commission of India's 244th Report on Electoral Disqualifications (2014) to prevent a convict from contesting elections for at least one election cycle consequent to his release. This 2014 Report was judicially affirmed by the Apex Court in Public Interest Foundation & Ors. v. Union of India & Anr. WP(C) 536 of 2011.

    It must be sighted that there is no blanket disqualification for conviction; unless the conviction was for an enlisted offence, or for a minimum term of 2 years under Section 8 (3). Evermore, pursuant to Lily Thomas v. Union of India & Ors. (2013) 7 SCC 653, a sitting representative convicted of an offence for less than 2 years would continue in the public office, whilst undergoing sentence. This paradoxical position under Section 8 (3) is lis pendens before the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Ganesh Khemka v. Union of India & Anr. CWP-PIL 150 of 2019, wherein the High Court prima facie observed the violation of reasonable classification under Article 14.

    Whilst the Election Commission had been entrusted the constitutional mandate for the conduct of elections under Article 324; Section 11 of the 1951 Act conferred an adjudicative mandate. Under Section 11, the Commission has the power to condone any disqualification arising out of the 1951 Act. Although the exercise of Section 11 powers is rare, its exercise qua Section 8 is a black swan—the power being exercised only thrice. Mitrasen Yadav was allowed to contest elections in 1974; whose life imprisonment for double murder was remitted to imprisonment. Shyam Narain Tiwari was allowed to contest elections in 1977; whose death sentence for murder was converted to a life sentence, which was remitted to rigorous imprisonment. Prem Singh Tamang was allowed to contest elections in 2019; who suffered 1-year sentence for corrupt practice under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

    Notwithstanding the rarity of its usage, Section 11 creates an inherent tussle qua Section 8. Firstly, Section 11 embodies no fetters, guidance, or principle for the exercise of adjudicative powers. Principally, the Commission acts in the capacity of a criminal court (when dealing with the death penalty) by looking at the set of mitigating factors, social considerations, etc. However, the lack of statutory guidance runs the risk of over-delegation and arbitrariness in exercise. Secondly, Section 11 creates space for potential abuse of the law. Although the Commission has only exercised powers to relax disqualification qua the cooling-off period and not the period under conviction; the carte blanche phraseology allows for the same. Therefore, the Commission is capable of allowing a convict to contest elections, or to hold membership to the House, whilst serving his sentence; the same being ridiculous against the precept of Rule of Law. Thirdly, Section 11 seems to create an unreasonable distinction between convictions arising from corrupt practices under the Prevention of Corruption Act under Section 8 (1)(m), and corrupt electoral practices under Section 8A. Whilst the former is condonable by the Commission, the latter is not. The plausible reason for not allowing a condonation of disqualification under Section 8A is to maintain a higher threshold for criminals who tampered with the electoral process. However, disqualification under Section 8 (1)(m) is of a similar nature; as the offence deals with similar rupturing of public machinery for private gains.

    The constitutionality of Section 11 qua Article 14 is lis pendens before the Delhi High Court in Dek Bahadur Katwal v. Union of India & Ors. WP(C) 11296 of 2019; wherein the specific challenge is qua the Commission's decision to allow Prem Singh Tamang to contest the 2019 By-elections to the Sikkim Assembly. However, irrespective of how the Delhi High Court holds the Petition on merits, the perils faced by the unfettered powers under Section 11 need to be ruled in.

    This article was published at Livelaw on 6 May 2020.