A deep-dive into India’s legal regime on political accountability and the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill
Almost half of our legislators have criminal records. But can the solution to this be a constitutional amendment that potentially erodes constitutional safeguards? In this explainer, we break down the debate in the simplest terms.
Vaibhav Singh
Published on: 26 September 2025, 11:54 am

DEMOCRACY IS MORE THAN LAWS AND ELECTIONS; it rests on the faith of citizens that their representatives will serve with integrity. Yet nearly half of India’s lawmakers face criminal charges, including serious offences like murder, rape, and corruption.
For the young voter casting her first ballot, this is not just a statistic but a betrayal of trust. Laws are being made by those accused of breaking them. Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 was meant to guard against this, disqualifying convicted legislators. But with trials dragging on for years, accused individuals continue to hold power and shape public policy.
In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court rightly struck down the delay in disqualification after conviction, affirming that probity in public life cannot wait. Yet conviction alone is not enough when justice itself is so delayed. The question is urgent and human: how can people believe in the rule of law when those making the law stand in the dock?
With the 130th Constitution Amendment Bill on the horizon which proposes to usher a regime of accountability for criminality in politics, this explainer dives deeply into where India’s legal regime stands today on political accountability, and whether the new Bill strengthens the framework or merely dilutes constitutional safeguards.
How can people believe in the rule of law when those making the law stand in the dock?
Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Section 8, which deals with the disqualification of a legislator.
Section 8(1): Disqualification will lead to where the convicted person is sentenced to only fine, for a period of six years from the date of such conviction; imprisonment, from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release.
Section 8(2): Conviction for other offences (with punishment between six months and two years) also leads to disqualification for the sentence period plus six years after release.
Section 8(3): Conviction with two years or more imprisonment results in disqualification for the sentence period plus six years thereafter.
Originally, Section 8 contained a protective clause (sub-section (4)) which allowed sitting Members of Parliament or State Legislatures to avoid immediate disqualification for three months after conviction, and longer if they filed an appeal or revision petition during that time. This meant disqualification would not take effect until such proceedings were finally disposed of. The idea was to safeguard the stability of legislatures and allow representatives to exhaust legal remedies before losing office.

