← 8 October 2026's Current Affairs · Polity GA Prelims ★★★★☆ Mains ★★★☆☆
When can a legislator be disqualified and a seat declared vacant?
बातमीत का?
Two years, not five: the Section 8(3) threshold and the Lily Thomas ruling Polity answers need
Disqualification on conviction under Section 8(3) of the RP Act and the Lily Thomas ruling.
Why it matters: asked in UPSC 2020
What you need to know
2 मिनिटे
The conviction of a Bihar MLA has revived the question of when a legislator loses their seat.
Under Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, a legislator sentenced to imprisonment of two years or more is disqualified from the date of conviction for the period of the sentence and six years afterwards.
In Lily Thomas v.
Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court struck down the protection that let sitting members continue pending appeal.
स्रोत: Topper IAS editorial (PIB / The Hindu / Indian Express)
महत्त्वाची तथ्ये
Remember these
- Section 8(3), Representation of the People Act, 1951: sentence of two years or more disqualifies a legislator
- Disqualification runs from the date of conviction, for the sentence period plus six years afterwards
- Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4), which protected sitting members pending appeal
- Result: a convicted sitting MP or MLA is disqualified on conviction itself and the seat falls vacant
- Trigger story: conviction of a Bihar MLA
पूर्व · मुख्य
How the exam will ask it
पूर्व
- Under Section 8(3) of the RP Act, 1951, conviction with imprisonment of two years or more disqualifies a legislator from the date of conviction.
- The disqualification continues for the period of the sentence and six years after release.
- In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court held Section 8(4), which allowed sitting members to continue pending appeal, unconstitutional.
- Disqualification on conviction applies to sitting members of Parliament and State Legislatures alike.
मुख्य
GS2 Polity: Representation of People's Act and landmark judgments. The issue is whether convicted legislators should keep their seats; Section 8(3) sets the two-year threshold and Lily Thomas (2013) removed the appeal-pendency shield of Section 8(4). The implication is stronger probity in public life, with the way forward lying in faster trials and electoral reforms that curb criminalisation of politics.
PYQ connection
A question UPSC has already asked on this
Consider the following statements:
- According to the Constitution of India, a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister in a state for six months even if he/she is not a member of that state.
- According to the Representation of People Act, 1951, a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for five years is permanently disqualified from contesting an election even after his release from prison.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
उत्तर पहा
उत्तर: A
Why this matters: today's issue is directly connected to a concept UPSC has already tested. Read the story with this question in mind.
Practise this PYQ →Quick recall
Answer before you reveal
With reference to disqualification of legislators under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, consider the following statements:
- Under Section 8(3), disqualification follows conviction only when the sentence is five years or more.
- In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court held that a convicted sitting member is disqualified on conviction, striking down the protection pending appeal under Section 8(4).
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- 1 only
- 2 only
- Both 1 and 2
- Neither 1 nor 2
उत्तर पहा
उत्तर: B — Correct: 2 only — Statement 1 is wrong because the threshold is two years, while statement 2 correctly records the Lily Thomas ruling that struck down Section 8(4). • 1 only — wrong: Statement 1 is wrong: Section 8(3) applies to a sentence of two years or more, so 1 only cannot be right. • Both 1 and 2 — wrong: Statement 1 is wrong because the threshold in Section 8(3) is two years, not five, so both cannot be correct. • Neither 1 nor 2 — wrong: Statement 2 is correct: Lily Thomas (2013) struck down Section 8(4), so 'neither' is wrong.
Convert this topic into marks
Today's 10-MCQ test · instant analysis · Powered by AdaptIQ