Representation of the People Act, 1951

Last updated

The Representation of People Act, 1951
Emblem of India.svg
Parliament of India
  • An Act to provide for the conduct of elections of the Houses of Parliament and to the Houses of the Legislature of each State, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those Houses, the corrupt practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections.
Citation Act No. 43 of 1951
Territorial extentWhole of India
Enacted by Parliament of India
Commenced17 July 1951
Related legislation
The Representation of People Act, 1950
Status: In force

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 is an act of Parliament of India to provide for the conduct of election of the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those Houses, what constitute corrupt practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the determination of disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections. It was introduced in Parliament by law minister Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. The Act was enacted by the provisional parliament under Article 327 of the Indian Constitution, before the first general election. [1]

Contents

Background

An elected constituent assembly was set up on 9 December 1946 to frame the constitution of India. Most of the articles of the constitution came into force on 26 January 1950, commonly known as the Republic Day. Part XXI of the constitution contained the transitional provisions. Articles 379 and 394 of Part XXI which contained provisions for provisional parliament and other articles which contained provisions like citizenship, came into force on 26 November 1949, the date on which the constitution was adopted. The provisional parliament enacted the Act vide Act No.43 of 1951 for the first general election conducted on 25 October 1951. The basic qualification to represent the people is Indian citizenship and not disqualified to vote under section 16 of the Representation of People Act, 1950 read with Part II and VII of this act. [2]

Amendments

The act has been amended several times, but some of the notable amendments include

The Representation of the People (Amendment) Bill, 2016 was introduced by Varun Gandhi in Lok Sabha. [6]

Application to constitutional offices

Registration of political parties is governed by the provisions of section 29A of this Act.

President

Supreme Court shall inquire and decide & regarding doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with the election of a President per Article 71(1) of the constitution. Subject to Article 71 (3), Parliament made applicable rules/procedure to petition the Supreme Court for resolving the disputes only that arise during the election process of the president but not the doubts that arise from his unconstitutional actions/deeds or changing Indian citizenship during the tenure of president which may violate the requisite election qualifications. [4] Subject to the provisions of Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971, Supreme Court can remove the president for ceasing to possess the eligible qualifications to be Lok Sabha member under Sections 7 & 8(k) of this Act when the acts/ deeds (i.e. for giving assent to unconstitutional bills passed by the parliament or state legislatives, permitting the gazette notification of the unconstitutional advises {including promulgation of ordinances under Article 123 or imposing president rules in a state under Article 356} rendered by the union cabinet / prime minister, etc.) of the president are proclaimed by the courts as unconstitutional, mala fide, ultra vires, void, etc. Also it is the duty of the Supreme Court to clarify any doubt in connection with the election of president such as speedy trail of the pending cases against an elected president before the elevation to president. The scope of the trail would be limited only to decide whether the incumbent president is eligible to continue in his post but not to prosecute the president under criminal charges with arrest and imprisonment or to claim relief in a civil case to comply with the provisions per Article 361 of the constitution.

Vice president

Similar to the president per article 71 upon ceasing to possess the requisite qualifications to be a member of Rajya Sabha subject to this Act. All pending criminal / corruption cases are to be disposed on priority by the Supreme court to decide whether he is qualified to continue as vice president

Prime minister

Speaker

Speaker of the Lok Sabha is also removed on getting disqualified for being Lok Sabha member under sections 7 & 8 of this Act. This would arise out of speaker's wrong certification of a bill as money bill inconsistent with the definition given in Articles 110 of the constitution. [7] When courts upheld the unconstitutional act of the speaker for wrong certification of a bill as money bill, it amounts to disrespecting the constitution deserving conviction under Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 which is applicable for disqualification of speaker's Lok Sabha membership under sections 7 & 8(1)(k) of this Act.

Supreme Court Rulings and RPA

The Constitution of India – which empowers the Parliament of India to make laws regarding disqualification of MP and MLA- also mentions that on disqualification of an MP or an MLA, the seat becomes vacant immediately. Interpreting the words of constitution the bench found the clause 8(4) of the RPA act -which gives a time period of 3 months to file an appeal and allows continuation in office till its disposal- as unconstitutional. The Cabinet of Ministers, in order to nullify the judgement, passed an ordinance for the amendment of the act, however the said Ordinance wasn't signed by the President and it was taken back. [8] [9] A recent verdict on 19 November 2013 ensured the stay on the election campaigning of the convicted legislators for the current session.[ citation needed ]

Office of Profit

Being public servants, elected representatives, MLAs or MPs, cannot hold an office of profit under section 9 (A) of the Representation of People's Act and Articles 102 and 191(E) of the Constitution. [10]

In the year 2006, Sonia Gandhi resigned her membership of Lok Sabha for enjoying office of profit while being an MP. [11] In 2006, Sonia Gandhi's ruling party in Parliament also amended the Parliament (Prevention of disqualification) Act, 1959 with retrospective effect from 4 April 1959 to prevent her[ according to whom? ] punishable under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 and Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. [12]

Section 8

Section 8 of the Act is important to combat criminalization of politics in India. It shows disqualification on conviction for certain offences under Indian Penal Code (now BNS).

Section 8(1): If a person is convicted of offences like promoting enmity (IPC 153A), bribery (IPC 171E), undue influence/personation (IPC 171F), rape (IPC 376), cruelty to women (IPC 498A), or under specific acts (e.g., Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Protection of Civil Rights Act 1955, etc.), then the person shall be disqualified for 6 years from conviction if fined only; if imprisoned, from conviction date plus 6 years post-release.

Section 8(2): If a person is convicted of offences like Hoarding/profiteering, food/drug adulteration, or any Dowry Prohibition Act violations, then the person, if sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months, shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years post-release.

Section 8(3): If a person is convicted of any offence not under 8(1) or 8(2), then the person shall be disqualified from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release. (This is the most well-known provision of Section 8)

Section 8(4): This provision was struck down in 2013 in Lily Thomas v Union of India case. This provision allowed sitting MPs/MLAs a 3-month grace period to appeal conviction before disqualification. Now, disqualification is immediate upon conviction. (This provision allowed convicted MP/MLAs to stay in power for several years, even decades, as long as the appeals continued in courts.) [13]

Currently the Supreme Court is hearing petitions regarding doing lifetime bans on convicted MPs/MLAs instead of the current 6-year bans. The union government has submitted that only parliament is qualified to enact lifetime ban by amending the law, and the court can't overreach here. Also, it has said that a lifetime ban a person would be unduly harsh, disproportionate and excessive, as the person would already have served his time in jail for an offence. [14] [15]

The Union government countered in its affidavit:

“By confining the operation of the penalty to an appropriate length of time, deterrence is ensured while undue harshness is avoided… The petitions fail to make a crucial distinction between the basis of disqualification and the effects of disqualification. The basis of disqualification is conviction for an offence. But the basis of the disqualification becomes non-existent when the period of the conviction ends. [15]

Critics say that allowing convicted politicians to reenter politics damages democracy, when already a record 46% of Lok Sabha members are facing criminal charges, with some parties such as Shiv Sena having 71% of seven winning candidates. [16] Also, there is little justification for allowing politicians such leeway when government employees are disqualified from employment once convicted. Moreover, in August 2025, the center introduced 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill to remove MPs/MLAs/CM/PM from their post once arrested for 30 days on serious offences, so there should be no reason for the center to oppose lifetime bans for convicted lawmakers. [17] The Election Commission of India has proposed barring candidates from contesting elections if they have serious criminal charges against them at the time of filing nominations. [18]

Some Notable Cases and Instances

Provisions

The Act allows cash donations of any amount but it states in section 29C that any contributions above 20,000 (US$240) to political parties are to be reported. [28]

See also

References

  1. The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (PDF). Retrieved 13 December 2019.
  2. "The Representation of the Peoples Act, 1950" . Retrieved 17 December 2019.
  3. "The representation of the people act,1951" (PDF). Retrieved 2 July 2015.
  4. 1 2 "Sections 13 to 20, The Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections Act, 1952" . Retrieved 2 July 2016.
  5. "The Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013" (PDF). Retrieved 21 September 2016.
  6. "Right to recall will keep MPs, MLAs on their toes", Hindustan Times , 1 March 2017
  7. "Aadhaar Act as Money Bill: Why the Lok Sabha isn't Immune from Judicial Review" . Retrieved 29 July 2016.
  8. "Supreme Court verdict on disqualifying netas: A right step in the wrong direction?". The FirstPost. 12 July 2013. Retrieved 30 October 2013.
  9. "A Quick U turn?". The Hindu. 2 October 2013. Retrieved 30 October 2013.
  10. 1 2 "Disqualification of 2 UP MLAs in OOP cases historic". dna. 30 January 2015. Retrieved 1 February 2015.
  11. "BJP forced Sonia Gandhi resignation as MP". 10 April 2006. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
  12. "Parliament (Prevention of disqualification)Amendment Act, 2006" (PDF). 18 August 2006. Retrieved 1 February 2017.
  13. "Section 8 in The Representation of the People Act, 1951". indiankanoon.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
  14. "Centre opposes life ban on convicted lawmakers". The Tribune. Retrieved 31 August 2025.
  15. 1 2 Rajagopal, Krishnadas (26 February 2025). "Govt. questions plea for life ban on convicted politicians, says penal punishments are finite". The Hindu. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 31 August 2025.
  16. Ranjan, Mukesh (6 June 2024). "Record 46% of newly-elected Lok Sabha MPs facing criminal cases: Study". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 31 August 2025.
  17. "The Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025". PRS Legislative Research. Retrieved 31 August 2025.
  18. Correspondent, Legal (24 January 2020). "Candidates with criminal past should not get ticket, Election Commission of India tells Supreme Court". The Hindu. ISSN   0971-751X . Retrieved 31 August 2025.{{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  19. "Indian residents abroad can participate in election process: Manmohan Singh". newstrackindia.com. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  20. "Liquor lands ex-Punjab minister in trouble | Latest News & Updates at Daily News & Analysis". dnaindia.com. 15 January 2012. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  21. "Paid news claims its price – The Hindu". The Hindu. thehindu.com. 21 October 2011. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  22. "State Elections 2007 - Constituency wise detail for 24-Bisauli Constituency of Uttar Pradesh". eci.nic.in. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  23. "BEFORE THE ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA In re:Account of election expenses of Smt. Umlesh Yadav, returned candidate from 24-Bisauli Assembly Constituency at the general election to the Uttar Pradesh Legislative Assembly, 2007-Scrutiny of account under section 10A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951" (PDF). 21 October 2011. Retrieved 13 December 2014.
  24. Mahapatra, Dhananjay (14 February 2017). "Sasikala's conviction in wealth case upheld by Supreme Court". Times of India .
  25. "EC disqualifies Minister in M.P." The Hindu. 25 June 2017.
  26. "Madras HC sets aside trial court order acquitting DMK Minister K Ponmudi in disproportionate assets case". The New Indian Express. Retrieved 22 December 2023.
  27. Bureau, ABP News (19 December 2023). "Madras HC Overturns Acquittal, Convicts DMK Minister K Ponmudi In Disproportionate Assets Case". news.abplive.com. Retrieved 22 December 2023.{{cite web}}: |last= has generic name (help)
  28. "Why Jaitley's Political Funding Reforms Won't End Anonymous Donations", The Wire , 6 February 2016