Should chargesheeted MPs/MLAs be barred from contesting elections?

NEW DELHI: The apex court’s disillusionment with the political class failing to implement some basic electoral reforms goes deeper than its demand of asking parties to put up names of its leaders with criminal antecedents on their website within 48 hours of their selection for contesting elections.
In 2014, when the law commission of India called a meeting of the political parties on electoral reforms, major parties including the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), BJP and Congress did not attend. This led to the then law panel chairman Justice AP Shah venting out his frustration saying that the political class was not serious about electoral reforms.
Since that day, a set of reforms have been suggested by the law panel and often reminded by the Election Commission and the Supreme Court, to implement them, but nothing has been done for "lack of political consensus". This includes a proposal to disqualify chargesheeted politicians from contesting elections.
Renowned lawyer Kapil Sibal, the law minister during UPA rule prior to 2014, had initiated and drafted an enabling legislation to disqualify all politicians, irrespective of their affiliation, if charges were framed against them in the courts, particularly in heinous crimes with imprisonment of seven years or more.
To weed out criminal elements from the legislature, the then UPA government had prepared the draft bill - Representation of People (RP) Act (Amendment) Bill. Before the change of government in 2014, consultations with the Election Commission were held. Consultations with the political parties were pending before it was to be tabled in Parliament. However, in the last seven years of the Narendra Modi government, all-party meetings could never be scheduled.
The draft bill provided for disqualification of a candidate for up to 13 years from contesting elections if chargesheeted in a heinous crime. The Modi government was at that time more preoccupied with piloting the Goods and Services Tax bill which was top on the agenda. The draft RP Act amendment bill also prescribed disqualifying an elected representative from the membership of Parliament or the state legislature if he/she was found to have submitted a false affidavit.
As recently as May this year, the Election Commission again reminded the government to take up all pending electoral reforms to bring more accountability to candidates contesting elections. It wanted the government to pass an enabling legislation where a false affidavit submitted by candidates provided for a prison term of a minimum of two years, and thus being disqualified to contest elections for next six years.
The apex court is currently exploring whether the matters of electoral reforms be referred to a larger seven-judge constitutional bench, that way binding the government on bringing in the much-delayed legislative amendments in the RP Act.
The SC had way back in 2014 asked the Law Commission to give its opinion on whether politicians against whom charges have been framed by a court for serious offences like rape, murder, etc, should be disqualified from contesting elections. The panel had strongly backed disqualification but the SC instead suggested fast tracking trials of lawmakers facing serious charges.