How MPs and MLAs are disqualified: grounds, the two-year rule and who decides

Article 102(1) sets out who is disqualified from being chosen as, and from being, a member of either House of Parliament. Article 191(1) says the same for state Assemblies and Councils. Both lists have five grounds, and both add a sixth, disqualification under the Tenth Schedule (Article 102(2) and 191(2)).

The Explanation says that being a Minister of the Union or a State does not by itself amount to holding an office of profit. Parliament has also exempted certain offices by law, in section 3 of the Parliament (Prevention of Disqualification) Act, 1959, and for state legislatures the Article lets the State's legislature do the same. Clause (e) is what brings in the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Section 8 of the Act ties disqualification to conviction. It has three tiers, and the ECI's document on qualifications reproduces the same text.

So a sentence of, say, three years for an offence covered by section 8(3) means disqualification from the date of conviction, throughout the sentence, and for six years after release. A sentence below two years for such an offence does not by itself trigger section 8(3).

The list in section 8(1) refers to sections of the Indian Penal Code. We did not check how those references read now that the new criminal codes are in force, so this page names only the general types of offence.

Section 8(4) used to say that a sitting member convicted under section 8 would not be disqualified until three months had passed, and, if an appeal or revision was filed within that time, until it was disposed of. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India, decided on 10 July 2013, the Supreme Court held that Parliament had no power to make section 8(4) and declared it ultra vires the Constitution.

• Section 8A: a person found guilty of a corrupt practice by a High Court order under section 99 can be disqualified by the President for up to six years, on the Election Commission's opinion. See election petitions.
• Section 9: dismissal from government service for corruption or disloyalty to the State disqualifies for five years from the dismissal.
• Section 9A: a subsisting contract with the appropriate Government for supply of goods or execution of works, made in the course of trade or business.
• Section 10: being a managing agent, manager or secretary of a company or corporation, other than a co-operative society, in which the appropriate Government holds at least 25% of the capital.
• Section 10A: failing without good reason to lodge the account of election expenses, in which case the Election Commission declares the person disqualified for three years from the order.

Section 11 lets the Election Commission, "for reasons to be recorded", remove any disqualification under that Chapter of the Act, or reduce its period. The power excludes section 8A, which is for the President, and it does not reach the constitutional grounds or the Tenth Schedule. Under section 11A, some convictions and section 8A orders also bar a person from voting for six years, which is a separate matter.

A reported example: The Tribune reported that on 29 September 2019 the Commission cut the disqualification of Sikkim's Chief Minister, convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, from six years to one year and one month. It said the order cited his party's clear majority in the April 2019 Assembly elections, the Governor's invitation to him to form the government, and earlier cases in which the Commission had removed disqualifications. We have relied on the newspaper report, not the Commission's order.

A pending matter, as reported: a 2016 petition in the Supreme Court, Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, asks that the six-year limit be replaced by a lifetime bar. In February 2025 the Centre opposed it as a matter of parliamentary policy. We could not verify the status of the case as of 25 September 2026, and this page does not predict its outcome. A 2014 Law Commission report separately recommended disqualification at the framing of charges; we found no such change in the Act text we consulted.