जन प्रतिनिधित्व अधिनियम, 1951 की धारा 8 में निहित निरर्हताओं संबंधी प्रावधानों में असंगति का समाधान करने की जरूरत है। इसमें स्पष्टता लानी चाहिए।। There is a need to resolve the ambiguity in the disqualification provisions under section 8 of the Representation of People Act 1951. Discuss.

Section 8 of the Representation of People Act 1951 accounts for sections 8(1), 8(2), 8(3), 8A, head qua vacuous upwards for disqualification.

There are certain ambiguities in disqualification procedures:-

(I) 8(4) Section says a liquidator convicted formed then 2years byears disqualification post that is to be met with section 1, that Elections Commission can reduce a period.

Some ambiguities:- (a) partially of discretionary (b) Procedure, if legislator candidate goes for appeal. Ambiguity

(II) 8A(1) Section says 'disqualification in case of corrupt practice under Article (23 of) Act.

Some ambiguity:- President gets the petition for remedy in this case 8A (A). However, election petitions to be filed to high court if disposed under 8(1), 8(2), 8(3).

8A(1(23) also in S. Sutramaniam balaiji case - Court said freebies are not corrupt's, so modification happen ambiguous as it said they got at post of free election.

(D) 2016 Report by election Commission for Reform in disqualification:- 4) It said disqualification due to false affidavit shall be included in election?

4.2) It also stated that unfair disqualification of political parties should be a ground.

CLARITY FOR SISTS (N LAW):- The Thomas case struck down Section 8(4) that granted convicted sitting legislators appeal to court stay disqualification. But laws is a lasting legislation needs to be clarified