Recently, the Supreme Court emphasised the importance of periodic legislative reviews to assess the efficacy of laws enacted by Parliament and state assemblies. In a case involving the Representation of People Act (RP Act), the Court observed that reviewing legislation every 10, 25 or 50 years would help determine whether the laws have achieved their intended objectives, required amendments, or should be repealed. It highlighted that the legislature could establish an expert body to evaluate such issues comprehensively.
The case arose from a writ petition filed by BJP candidate Maneka Sanjay Gandhi, challenging the constitutional validity of the 45-day time limit prescribed under the RP Act for filing an election petition to contest poll results. Gandhi, who lost the Sultanpur constituency election to Samajwadi Party’s Rambhual Nishad by over 43,000 votes, alleged suppression of critical information in Nishad’s election affidavit. Gandhi's counsel contended that she became aware of these irregularities after the statutory period for filing the petition had elapsed.
Senior Advocate Sidharth Luthra, representing Maneka Sanjay Gandhi, argued that the SP candidate failed to disclose all pending criminal cases in his affidavit, which, under the RP Act and Supreme Court precedents, constituted corrupt practices. He further submitted that suppressing such information warrants disqualification of the candidate. However, Luthra acknowledged that extending the limitation period beyond 45 days would amount to judicial overreach.
The bench led by Justice Surya Kant and Justice N.K. Singh made significant observations on the broader legislative framework and its practical application. The Court stressed the necessity of a periodic review of laws to ensure their continued relevance and effectiveness. It noted, “While judicial review is limited to assessing the validity of laws, it is imperative that legislatures periodically examine whether the laws they enact have served their intended purposes or require modifications”. The Court elaborated that such reviews could help identify deficiencies, bottlenecks, or ambiguities in existing laws. To facilitate this, the legislature could consider establishing expert bodies to undertake a thorough analysis of each statute’s performance. Justice Surya Kant observed, “Periodic audits of laws at intervals such as 10, 25, or 50 years would allow legislatures to evaluate whether these laws have achieved the objectives for which they were enacted”.
On the specific issue of the RP Act’s 45-day time limit for filing election petitions, the bench highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory limits, explaining that judicial intervention in extending such time frames would effectively amount to legislating, which falls outside the judiciary's domain. Justice Kant further remarked, "If the Court extends the period of limitation, it would set a precedent of overstepping the judiciary's constitutional mandate and encroaching upon legislative functions."
The Court's remarks underscored a balanced approach, advocating for a robust mechanism within the legislative framework to address systemic issues while respecting the separation of powers between the judiciary and legislature.
The Top Court dismissed Gandhi’s writ petition while allowing her to pursue two specific prayers in an appeal against the Allahabad High Court’s dismissal of her election petition. The Court issued a notice to Nishad, directing him to respond to Gandhi’s allegations regarding discrepancies in his election affidavit within four weeks.
Picture Source :