Disqualification on conviction for certain offences
Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 deals with disqualification on conviction for certain offences. A person convicted of an offence punishable under-- (a) section 153A (offence of promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) or section 171E (offence of bribery) or section 171 The Act came into force on 17 Jul 1951.
1[(1) A person convicted of an offence punishable under--
(a) section 153A (offence of promoting enmity between different groups on ground of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony) or section 171E (offence of bribery) or section 171F (offence of undue influence or personation at an election) or sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of section 376 or section 376A or section 376B or section 376C or section 376D (offences relating to rape) or section 498A (offence of cruelty towards a woman by husband or relative of a husband) or sub-section (2) or sub-section (3) of section 505 (offence of making statement creating or promoting enmity, hatred or ill-will between classes or offence relating to such statement in any place of worship or in any assembly engaged in the performance of religious worship or religious ceremonies) or the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860); or
(b) the Protection of Civil Rights Act, 1955 (22 of 1955), which provides for punishment for the preaching and practice of untouchability, and for the enforcement of any disability arising therefrom; or
(c) section 11 (offence of importing or exporting prohibited goods) of the Customs Act, 1962 (52 of 1962); or
(d) sections 10 to 12 (offence of being a member of an association declared unlawful, offence relating to dealing with funds of an unlawful association or offence relating to contravention of an order made in respect of a notified place) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (37 of 1967); or
(e) the Foreign Exchange (Regulation) Act, 1973 (46 of 1973); or
(f) the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (61 of 1985); or
(g) section 3 (offence of committing terrorist acts) or section 4 (offence of committing disruptive activities) of the Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Prevention) Act, 1987 (28 of 1987); or
(h) section 7 (offence of contravention of the provisions of section 3 to 6) of the Religious Institutions (Prevention of Misuse) Act, 1988 (41 of 1988); or
(i) section 125 (offence of promoting enmity between classes in connection with the election) or section 135 (offence of removal of ballot papers from polling stations) or section 135A (offence of booth capturing) or clause (a) of sub-section (2) of section 136 (offence of Fraudulently defacing or fraudulently destroying any nomination paper) of this Act; 2[or]
2[(j) section 6 (offence of conversion of a place or worship) of the Places of Worship (Special Provisions) Act 1991], 3[or]
4[(k) section 2 (offence of insulting the Indian National Flag or the Constitution of India) or section 3 (offence of preventing singing of National Anthem) of the Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971 (69 of 1971) 5[or];]
5[(l) the Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act, 1987 (3 of 1988); or
(m) the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (49 of 1988); or
(n) the Prevention of Terrorism Act, 2002 (15 of 2002),]
6[shall be disqualified, where the convicted person is sentenced to--
(i) only fine, for a period of six years from the date of such conviction;
(ii) imprisonment, from the date of such conviction and shall continue to be disqualified for a further period of six years since his release,]
(2) A person convicted for the contravention of--
(a) any law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering; or
(b) any law relating to the adulteration of food or drugs; or
(c) any provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 7[1961 (28 of 1961);],
8* * * * *
and 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 since his release.
(3) A person convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment for not less than two years other than any offence referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (2)] 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.]
9[(4)] Notwithstanding anything 10[in sub-section (1), sub-section 2 and sub-section (3)] a disqualification under either sub-section shall not, in the case of a person who on the date of the conviction is a member of Parliament or the Legislature of a State, take effect until three months have elapsed from that date or, if within that period an appeal or application for revision is brought in respect of the conviction or the sentence, until that appeal or application is disposed of by the court.
Explanation.--In this section--
(a) "law providing for the prevention of hoarding or profiteering" means any law, or any order, rule or notification having the force of law, providing for--
(i) the regulation of production or manufacture of any essential commodity;
(ii) the control of price at which any essential commodity may be brought or sold;
(iii) the regulation of acquisition, possession, storage, transport, distribution, disposal, use or consumption of any essential commodity;
(iv) the prohibition of the withholding from sale of any essential commodity ordinarily kept for sale;
(b) "drug" has the meaning assigned to it in the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 (23 of 1940);
(c) "essential commodity" has the meaning assigned to it in the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 (10 of 1955);
(d) "food" has the meaning assigned to it in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 (37 of 1954).
Section 8, The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (Act 43 of 1951).
Cross-references
Extracted from the operative text of the enactments themselves. Every destination below exists in our corpus.
This section refers to
- s. 2 Interpretation
- s. 3 Qualification for membership of the Council of States
- s. 4 Qualifications for membership of the House of the People
- s. 6 Qualifications for membership of a Legislative Council
- s. 7 Definitions
- s. 10 Disqualification for office under Government company
- s. 11 Removal or reduction of period of disqualification
- s. 12 Notification for biennial election to the Council of States
- s. 125 Promoting enmity between classes in connection with election
- s. 135 Removal of ballot papers from polling station to be an offence
- s. 135A Offence of booth capturing
- s. 136 Other offences and penalties therefor
Related judgements & precedents
These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.
-
Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Courts cannot add a disqualification for mere framing of charges to RP Act s.8. Parliament's field. Candidates/parties must publish criminal antecedents widely (Form 26 plus extra publicity).
On this section: s.8 disqualification remains conviction-based; framing of charges is not a s.8 disqualification.
-
Lily Thomas v. Union of India
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Patnaik J. (with Mukhopadhaya J.), 10 July 2013. Use Judgment of Main Case order-11.pdf, not same-date order-12 ROP. RP Act s.8(4) (sitting MP/MLA saving from immediate disqualification on conviction) is struck down as violating Articles 14, 102 and 191; ss.8(1)–(3) apply equally to sitting members. Combined already had this CNR on Art 191 with an empty order — this pass attaches the labelled Judgment and adds RP s.8 / Arts 102 and 14. Not a new unique CNR.
On this section: s.8(4) saving for sitting MPs/MLAs is struck down; ss.8(1)–(3) disqualification on conviction applies at once to sitting members as well.
-
State of Himachal Pradesh& ORS. vs Satpal Saini
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
A court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot issue a direction (mandamus) to the legislature to enact a law or to amend a law that it has enacted, as the constitutional function of determining whether a law should be enacted or amended lies exclusively in the domain of the legislature as the repository of sovereign legislative power. The doctrine of separation of powers prohibits the judiciary from encroaching upon this basic constitutional function of the legislature, even when the court believes that legislative amendment would be desirable or would serve public interest. Whether a provision of law should be amended is a matter of legislative policy, not subject to judicial mandate.
On this section: Referenced in the context of the Manoj Narula case to establish that decisions on amending legislation rest solely with Parliament, not courts.
-
Election Commission of India vs Bajrang Bahadur Singh
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Section 9A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, applies to supervening disqualifications (those acquired after election) and operates to render a legislator's seat automatically vacant by operation of Article 190(3) from the moment the legislator enters into a contract with the government for supply of goods or execution of works. The disqualification is not contingent on completion or non-completion of the contract, nor is it affected by subsequent completion of contractual obligations. The disqualifying event is the mere entry into such a contract by a person already serving as a legislator. Once incurred, the disqualification operates to vacate the seat immediately, even though the period of disqualification itself may be limited to the subsistence of the contract. A legislator who becomes disqualified cannot resume office without being re-elected, though upon cessation of the disqualifying event, he becomes eligible to contest fresh elections. The Governor's declaration under Article 192 is purely declaratory in nature, determining whether the factual event occurred; the legal consequence of seat vacation flows from the Constitution itself, not from the Governor's declaration.
On this section: Disqualification on conviction for certain offences with specified periods
-
Pravasi Bhalai Sangathan vs U. O. I.
Court's Decision & Legal Precedent
Where statutory provisions provide comprehensive remedies for addressing hate speeches, and the existing legal regime is sufficiently developed to address the menace through enforcement by law enforcing agencies and executive bodies, courts should not issue new judicial directions that go beyond their separation of powers authority or create judicially unmanageable orders. Instead, courts should emphasize effective execution of existing law and request appropriate bodies like the Law Commission to undertake legislative study and make recommendations for strengthening the legal framework. Judicial activism, while legitimate for addressing legal vacuums or preventing fraud upon statutes, must yield to separation of powers principles and the primacy of legislative action when the legislature has already expressed its will through comprehensive statutory schemes.
On this section: Disqualification provisions; relevant to discussions on disqualifying candidates who engage in hate speeches
The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.
Made under this section, and citing it
1 instrument names this provision in its title or its text without being made under it.
Questions about Section 8
What have the courts held on Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act?
Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (25 Sep 2018) is the leading judgment on this section among those set out below: s.8 disqualification remains conviction-based; framing of charges is not a s.8 disqualification. Another 4 judgments on this section are set out below, all of them from the Supreme Court. They run from 2013 to 2018.
How do I find court cases under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act?
In judgments and charge sheets this section is written several ways, and each form finds a different set of orders. These search the full text of every order eCourtsIndia holds, best matches first: RP Act 1951 8, section 8 RP Act 1951, section 8 of the Representation of the People Act. People searching for it also type representation of the people act 1951 section 8 and section 8a of the representation of the people act 1950. Each opens the full list of orders on eCourtsIndia, where it can be narrowed by court, year and outcome. 5 reported judgments on this section are set out on this page, beginning with Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (25 Sep 2018).
What should I read with Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, and has it changed?
Its own text turns on section 2 (Interpretation), section 3 (Qualification for membership of the Council of States), section 4 (Qualifications for membership of the House of the People), section 6 (Qualifications for membership of a Legislative Council), and on 8 further provisions, so none of them can safely be read on its own. 3 other provisions in this corpus refer back to it. One instrument names it without being made under it, most recently The Conduct of Assembly Elections (Sikkim) Rules, 1979 (1979).
When did Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act come into force?
Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, cited as RP Act 1951 8, came into force on 17 Jul 1951, having been enacted on 17 Jul 1951. It is in force as at the date shown on this page.
Other sections of this Act
Source and method. Compiled from the enactments of Parliament and of the State legislatures as published on India Code, and republished together with commentary and other original matter under section 52(1)(q)(ii) of the Copyright Act, 1957. Structured, cross-referenced and maintained by eCourtsIndia. Text as in force on 14 Oct 2026. This page is not a substitute for legal advice.