Examine the tension between the right to contest elections and the need to uphold electoral ethics under the Representation of the People's Act. Should there be a lifetime ban on convicted criminals? (Answer in 250 words)
Introduction
17 words
Main Body
Supreme Court is hearing a case filed petitioning for lifetime ban on convicted criminals for contesting elections.
Article 386, Part XVIII
Right to contest elections → principle of 'republic' where all elected offices open for citizens
Eligibility based on Constitution and RPAs, 1951
However, there is a tension between right to contest elections and need to uphold electoral ethics
Upholding electoral ethics:
Lifetime ban on convicted criminals from contesting elections?
Currently, convicted criminals getting more than 2 years of imprisonment can't contest elections till 6 years after coming out of jail.
Arguments for:
ethical governance | reform not punish
Arguments against:
lifetime ban on convicted criminals especially for those involved in heinous crime can be an option. This will surely further the principle of 'politics with morality'
— Ananya Rana · AIR 60
Conclusion
26 words
Diagram
Right to contest elections framework showing: Article 386 Part XVIII; principle of 'republic' where all elected offices open; Eligibility based on Constitution and RPA, 1951
- Clear identification of the tension between rights and ethics
- Proper reference to constitutional provisions
- Acknowledges the ongoing Supreme Court case
- Provides multiple dimensions of electoral ethics
- Gives current legal position (2 years imprisonment rule)
- Begins to present balanced arguments
- Presents balanced arguments for and against
- References important case law (Lily Thomas)
- Uses relevant concepts (broken window theory)
- Nuanced conclusion proposing conditional lifetime ban
Ananya Rana
Representation of People's Act
Electoral Reforms
Lifetime Ban on Convicted Criminals
307
Total words
8
Paragraphs
analytical
Tone