Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India and Another, 2025

The case arose from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed in 2017, which seeks to prohibit convicted persons from creating political parties or distributing party tickets.

The PIL challenges whether the Election Commission of India (ECI) has the authority under Section 29A to de-recognize political parties formed by persons who have been convicted of crimes.

The petitioner contends that despite disqualification under Section 29A (such as being disqualified from voting or contesting elections), individuals can still legally form political parties, even from prison, and hold influential political positions.

The PIL highlights concerns about criminalization of politics, pointing to convicted leaders like Lalu Yadav, O.P. Chautala, Shashi Kala, among others, who continue to wield political power despite serious convictions.

The Supreme Court, through a bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Joymalya Bagchi, acknowledged that the PIL raises an interesting and important issue but deferred the hearing for detailed consideration at a later date.

The Court observed that merely because a person has been disqualified for a statutory right (like voting or contesting elections), it does not ipso facto deprive him of his constitutional right under Article 19(1)(c) to form associations or political parties.

Justice Kant posed a hypothetical: if Parliament bars persons above 80 years from holding public office, can they also be barred from leading political parties? This highlights the complexity of restricting constitutional rights through statutory disqualifications.

The Court noted that recommendations from expert bodies (like the Law Commission) on electoral reforms are relevant but ultimate legislative changes rest with Parliament.

The Union Government, in an affidavit, submitted that party autonomy includes the right to appoint office-bearers and the ECI’s powers under Section 29A do not include cancelling party registration based on criminal antecedents of leaders.

The affidavit also stated that the issue of electoral reforms is under consideration by the Law Commission of India, which had not recommended refusal of party registration on grounds of criminal antecedents.

The case highlights the fundamental constitutional right to freedom of association under Article 19(1)(c) and its protection even for persons disqualified under electoral laws.

It exposes a legal gap/vacuum where convicted individuals can still hold or create powerful political parties, potentially influencing governance despite criminal convictions.

The role of the Election Commission is clarified as limited to party registration rules and not empowered to de-recognize parties solely based on criminal antecedents.

The matter raises policy and legislative issues requiring Parliament’s intervention for electoral reforms to address criminalization in politics effectively.

The judgment reiterates the importance of party autonomy, while balancing it against the need for clean politics and accountability.