The Delhi High Court has upheld the decision of the Election Commission of India refusing to reduce the period of electoral disqualification of a person convicted of an offence involving violence, holding that the discretionary power under Section 11 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 is an extraordinary power that must be exercised sparingly and only in exceptional circumstances.
Justice Amit Bansal dismissed the writ petition challenging the Election Commission’s order dated December 5, 2025 rejecting the petitioner’s application seeking reduction of the disqualification period under Section 11 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.
The petitioner had been convicted by the Supreme Court in 2017 for offences under Sections 326 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for an offence committed in 1993. In view of the sentence exceeding two years, the petitioner incurred disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which provides that a person convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years shall be disqualified from the date of conviction and for a further period of six years after release.
Although the petitioner was granted premature release in June 2021 following a recommendation by the Jail Advisory Board on account of good conduct, he later approached the Election Commission under Section 11 of the Act seeking reduction of the disqualification period on the basis of his conduct after conviction, premature release and social contributions. The Election Commission rejected the request, observing that the power under Section 11 is extraordinary and discretionary and is intended to be exercised only in exceptional circumstances.
Before the High Court, the petitioner contended that the Election Commission had narrowly construed the scope of its discretionary power and failed to consider his application on merits. It was also argued that the offence had been committed decades earlier and that the principles of reformation in criminal jurisprudence ought to be considered.
The Election Commission opposed the petition, submitting that the exercise of discretionary power under Section 11 does not create any vested right in favour of a convicted person and that premature release from prison cannot by itself remove the statutory disqualification flowing from conviction.
The Court observed that the statutory scheme of the Act makes it clear that disqualification under Section 8 flows directly from conviction and sentence. It further held that Section 11 operates as an exception to the disqualification provisions and therefore must be strictly interpreted. Merely because a statutory authority has been vested with discretionary power does not mean that a person has a vested right to demand that such power be exercised in his favour.
Examining the Election Commission’s order, the Court found that the Commission had considered the petitioner’s case in its entirety and concluded that no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances existed to warrant reduction of the disqualification period. The Commission had also observed that good conduct after conviction, premature release on remission and social contributions by themselves cannot justify exercise of the extraordinary power under Section 11, as doing so would dilute the statutory scheme of disqualification under Section 8.
The Court also noted that the Commission had exercised this power only in three exceptional cases over several decades and had distinguished the case of Prem Singh Tamang relied upon by the petitioner, observing that it was based on materially different facts and was presently under consideration before the Supreme Court.
Finding no infirmity in the reasoning adopted by the Election Commission and holding that no grounds were made out for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Court dismissed the writ petition.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Gautam Narayan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shinoj K. Narayanan, Mr. Nishad L. S. and Mr. Aditya Verma, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mr. Sanjay Vashishtha, Mr. Ashish Shukla and Mr. Siddhartha Goswami, Advocates.
