N.V. Ramana, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the constitutional validity of the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013 (for short, impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013) as being ultra vires the Constitution of India (for short, the Constitution‘), vitiated by mala fides and against the general public interest.

Amendment and Validation Act, 2013

2. At the outset, it would be appropriate to reproduce the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013, which reads as under:-

"Be it enacted by Parliament in the Sixty-fourth Year of the Republic of India as follows— 1. Short title and commencement.—

(1) This Act may be called the Representation of the People (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2013. (2) It shall be deemed to have come into force on the 10th day of July, 2013.

2. Amendment of Section 7.-- In the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951) (hereinafter referred to as the principal Act), in Section 7, in clause (b), after the words " or Legislative Council of a State", the words "under the provisions of this Chapter, and on no other ground" shall be inserted.

3. Amendment of Section 62.-- In Section 62 of the principal Act after the proviso to sub-section (5), the following proviso shall be inserted, namely—

"Provided further that by reason of the prohibition to vote under this sub-section, a person whose name has been entered in the electoral roll shall not cease to be an elector."

4. Validation.-- Notwithstanding anything contained in any judgment, decree or order of any court, tribunal or other authority, the provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (43 of 1951), as amended by this Act, shall have and shall be deemed always to have effect for all purposes as if the provisions of this Act had been in force at all material times."

3. The constitutional validity of the Act has been challenged on the following grounds:

i.) The impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 is a fraud upon the Constitution and vitiated by mala fides as it had been enacted by political leaders to protect their vested interests by hatching a conspiracy. It was submitted that by the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013, the right to contest elections has been provided to those, who are in lawful custody, by overlooking the judgment dated 10th July, 2013 of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 3040-3041 of 2004 titled Chief Election Commissioner, etc. v. Jan Chaukidar (Peoples Watch) & Ors. For this purpose, reliance was also placed upon Sections 4(d) and 5(c) of Representation of the People Act, 1951 (for short, RP Act of 1951‘). The relevant portion of Jan Chaukidar (Peoples Watch) & Ors.’s case (supra) is reproduced as under:

“6. Aggrieved, by the findings of the High Court, the appellants have filed these appeals. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and we do not find any infirmity in the findings of the High Court in the impugned common order that a person who has no right to vote by virtue of the provisions of sub-section (5) of Section 62 of the 1951 Act is not an elector and is therefore not qualified to contest the election to the House of the People or the Legislative Assembly of a State.

7. These civil appeals are accordingly dismissed. No costs.”

ii.) It was submitted that the Parliament by the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 had virtually set aside the judgment of the Supreme Court in Jan Chaukidar (Peoples Watch) & Ors.’s case (supra) as the appellate court would have done in an appeal.

iii.) It was further submitted that the impugned Amendment and Validation Act, 2013 would give fillip to criminalization of politics and would violate the fundamental right of the public at large to elect the people with good antecedents as their representatives.

iv.) It was also submitted that the constitutional validity of Section 62(5) of the Representation of the People Act, which debarred a person in lawful custody from voting in an election