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?

The RPA, 1951 provides for various provisions - two things namely: 1) electoral offences and 2) corrupt practice. These along with judicial pronouncement have heated tension with right to contest elections and need of ethics in elections. Tension b/n the two: 1. The Suji Thamse case (2015) squashes section 8(4) of RPA/1951 - immediate removal of MP with criminal case. In Priyanka vs UoI - SC said, right to contest election is not a fundamental right and did it give right to prisoner under detention.

3. In ADR case 1992 - it mandated compulsory disclosure under section 77 of criminal antecedent, it is affidavit. 4. In PUC case - not following/giving correct information under section 77 will lead to disqualification under section 10A of RPA/1951. 5. In Ashok Chukov case - SC said, right of citizen to know about financial background and made disclosure of asset violating. 6. In Ashram Singh - resorting to deceptive factor like religion, caste is violative of section 123: corrupt practices - elections are secular activities

— Kiran Kamate · AIR 53