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? (Answer in 250 words)

Representation of People Acts → 1950 and 1951 → provide provisions for electoral ethics as well as right to contest elections. # RIGHT TO CONTEST ELECTIONS → To every citizen of India → Must be compliant with conditions laid down in RPA, 1950. # ELECTORAL ETHICS → free and level playing field → diminish role of money and muscle power.

But a tension emerges, if we try to uphold both. # TENSION Between Right to contest and need to uphold electoral ethics → 1) Money and muscle power get promoted if everyone allowed to contest. 2) criminal and frivolous elements may take advantage over others. In this light; Two Arguments → I LIFETIME BAN ON CONVICTED CRIMINALS: 1) Presents a great option to deter the criminalization of politics. 2) Favors genuine candidates → to contest and win. 3) Promotes better Representation for people. 4) Electoral Malpractices will be kept at bay.

Yet, True Spirit of democracy faces a challenge by adopting this option. II Need is for a BALANCED APPROACH: 1) Lily Thomas case (2013) → Immediate suspension of a convicted candidate cannot contest for 6 years after conviction. 2) Law Commission → recommends restricting the criminals participation. 3) ECI recommends → proper disclosure of criminal background. Hence, a lifetime ban will not be an adequate solution.

— Rasneet Kaur · AIR 51