Mere Good Conduct After Conviction No Ground To Reduce Electoral Disqualification Period Under RP Act: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that mere good conduct of an individual after conviction is no ground to reduce the electoral disqualification period prescribed under Section 8 of Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Justice Amit Bansal said if such a stand is accepted, it would dilute the mandate of the provision which prescribes for disqualification of a person for certain offences.

The Court made the observations while dismissing a petition challenging the Election Commission of India's decision refusing to reduce the period of electoral disqualification imposed on a man, Balaji, under Section 11 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Balaji was convicted by the Supreme Court in 2017 for offences under Sections 326 and 149 of IPC relating to an incident that occurred in 1993, and was sentenced to seven years' imprisonment.

Following the conviction and sentence exceeding two years, he incurred disqualification under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which bars a person from contesting elections during imprisonment and for six years after release.

He was prematurely released from prison in June 2021 after the Jail Advisory Board recommended remission due to his good conduct.

Subsequently, in August 2025, he approached the ECI under Section 11 of the RP Act seeking reduction of the disqualification period, citing his good conduct in prison, premature release and post-release social contributions. However, the Election Commission of India rejected his application in December last year.

Dismissing his plea, Justice Bansal said that merely because a statutory authority such as ECI has been vested with discretionary power in terms of Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951 would not mean that there is a vested right in favour of Balaji for the said right to be exercised in his favour.

“In my considered view, the mandate of the RP Act, 1951 with regard to the disqualification of a candidate on conviction for offences is clear from a reading of Section 8. Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951 is in the nature of an exception to the disqualifications under Section 8,” the Court said.

It held that no fault can be found with the decision of ECI that discretion under Section 11 of the RP Act, 1951 should be exercised only in exceptional and extraordinary circumstances.

“Merely because the petitioner has shown good conduct after his conviction cannot be a ground for reduction of the disqualification period prescribed under Section 8 of the RP Act, 1951. If the submission of the petitioner is accepted, it would dilute the mandate of Section 8 of the RP Act, 1951,” the judge held.

Title: SHRI BALAJI v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

Click here to read order