Criminalisation of politics

What is criminalisation of politics(CoP)

• Criminalization of Politics means that the criminals entering the politics and contesting elections and even getting elected to the Parliament and state legislature.
• Criminalisation of politics is the focus of public debate when discussion on electoral reforms takes place.
• The issue of candidates facing criminal charges getting elected to Parliament and State legislative Assemblies is often raised..
• The C riminalisation of politics EVOLVED in India since emergency times.
• N N VOHRA Committee studied the problem of the criminalisation of politics and of the nexus among criminals, politicians and bureaucrats in India.

Main reasons for Criminalization:

Vote Bank: A s the SC has observed that we as a voter are not yet organically evolved, therefore, majority of the voters are maneuverable, purchasable. Expenditure for vote
buying and other illegitimate purposes through criminals leads to nexus between politicians and criminals.

Corruption : In elections all parties give tickets to those candidates who have a criminal background. Generally such candidates are elected as well. Institutionalization of
corruption and failure to deal with corruption has bred contempt for the law. This, combined with the criminalization of politics, flourishes the corruption. As a matter of
fact, the number of such MPs has ever been on the increase since last three Lok Sabha elections who have criminal background or pending cases against them 2004 = 124 ,
2009 = 162 and 2014 182

Loop Holes in The Functioning of Election Commission : For the past several general elections there has existed a gulf between the Election Commission and the voter.
Common people hardly come to know the rules made by the commission. Model Code of Conduct is openly flouted by candidates without any stringent repercussions.

Denial of Justice and Rule of Law: Toothless laws against convicted criminals standing for elections further encourage this process. In December 2017 , the
Government announced to set up 12 fast track courts across the country to try criminal cases pending against sitting MPs and MLAs. 40 percent of pending cases have been transferred to special courts of which judgments have been pronounced in just 136 cases ( 11 %).

Though the Representation of the People Act (RPA) disqualifies a sitting legislator or a candidate on certain grounds, there is nothing regulating the appointments to offices within the party. A politician may be disqualified from being a legislator, but he may continue to hold high positions within his party, thus also continuing to play an important public role which he/she has been
deemed unfit for by the law. Convicted politicians may continue to influence law making by controlling the party and fielding proxy candidates in legislature.

Why there is a need to Decriminalize Politics:

• The quality of candidates contesting elections becomes important because it is at the root of our governance challenges.
• Individuals we elect represent us in our legislative institutions and make laws that govern our society.
• Dr Rajendra Prasad said that a constitution like a machine is a lifeless thing. It acquires life because of the men who control it and operate it.

What the Law Says?
• The Representation of People Act specifies what can disqualify an individual from contesting an election.
• The law does not bar individuals who have criminal cases pending against them from contesting elections.
• An individual punished with a jail term of more than two years cannot stand in an election for six years after the jail term has ended.
• If a lower court has convicted an individual, he cannot contest an election unless a higher court has overturned his conviction.

Supreme Court’s Rulings:
• Making it mandatory for candidates to submit an affidavit with full disclosure of criminal cases, if any, and details of their asset and income were made mandatory by the judiciary.
• The court made it mandatory for political parties and candidates themselves to make public disclosure through print and electronic media.
• None of the Above (NOTA) option was also introduced by the judiciary in 2003.
• In 2013 , the apex court ruled that a sitting MP and MLA convicted of a jail term of two years or more would lose their seat in the legislature immediately.
• The Supreme Court favoured the creation of special courts for expediting criminal cases involving politicians.

Consequences of Criminalisation of Politics:

• The major problem is that the law breakers become law makers, this affects the efficacy of the democratic process in delivering good governance.
• It also leads to increased circulation of black money during and after elections, diluting probity in public life.
• It introduces a culture of violence in society and sets a bad precedent for the youth to follow.
• These unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of India’s state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.
• Former President Dr Rajendra Prasad held that “If the people who are elected are capable and men of character and integrity, then they would be able to make the best even of a defective constitution. If they are lacking in these, the Constitution cannot help the count.

• The judgment notes that In 2004 , 24 % of the Members of Parliament had criminal cases pending against them; in 2009 , that went up to 30 %; in 2014 to 34 %;  and in 2019 as many as 43 % of MPs had criminal cases pending against them.them.” Based on this Supreme court.

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered political parties to publish the entire criminal history of their candidates for Assembly and Lok Sabha elections along
with the reasons that forced them to field suspected criminals.

The order was a reply to the contempt petition about the general disregard shown by political parties to a 2018 Constitution Bench judgment (Public
Interest Foundation v. Union of India) to publish the criminal details of their candidates in their respective websites and print as well as electronic media for
public awareness.

The SC passed an order while exercising powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution which deals with the contempt power of the Supreme Court and enforcement of its decrees and orders.

Highlights of the Order:

It is mandatory for political parties (at the Central and State election level) to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases.

It shall also include the nature of their offences, charges framed against them, the court concerned, case number, etc.

Additionally, the political parties need to offer an explanation as to why candidates with pending criminal cases are selected as candidates in the first place.

Thus the candidate s mere winnability at the polls ’ shall not be the sole reason for handing over a ticket to the candidate to contest elections.

The above information needs to be published in a local as well as a national newspaper as well as the parties ’ social media handles.

The information mandatorily to be published either within 48 hours of the selection of candidates or less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.

The political parties need to submit compliance reports with the Election Commission of India within 72 hours.

If a political party fails to submit then the Election Commission shall bring such non compliance by the political party concerned to the notice of the Supreme Court as being in contempt of this Courts orders/directions.

Significance of the Order:

Over the last four general elections, there has been an alarming increase in the incidence of criminals in politics. The increasing criminalization of politics threatens the law making process and thus lawmakers should be above any kind of serious criminal allegation.

In 2004 , 24 of the Members of Parliament (MPs) had criminal cases pending against them. This number has increased to 43 % of MPs in 2019

The direction of SC to legislate parliamentary legislation to curb criminalization of politics may help to deliver constitutional governance.

What is the way out?

• There are three possible options.
• One, political parties should themselves refuse tickets to the
  tainted.
• Two, the RP Act should be amended to debar persons against
  whom cases of a heinous nature are pending from contesting
  elections.
• Three, fast track courts should decide the cases of tainted
  legislators quickly.

Other suggested measure to curb criminalization of politics:
• Bringing greater transparency in campaign financing is going to make it less attractive for political parties to involve gangsters.
• The Election Commission of India (ECI) should have the power to audit the financial accounts of political parties.
• Broader governance will have to improve for voters to reduce the reliance on criminal politicians.
• The Election Commission must take adequate measures to break the nexus between the criminals and the politicians.
• State Funding of Election: Various committees (Dinesh Goswami, Inderjeet Committee) on the electoral reforms have recommended for state funding of elections.
• State funding of elections will curb use of black money to a large extent and thereby will have a significant impact on limiting criminalization of politics.
• Strengthening of Election Commission: Election Commission can register a political party but cannot deregister it. Regulating the affairs of a political party is essential for a cleaner electoral process.

Conclusion:

Corruption and criminalisation of politics is hitting at the roots of democracy. Therefore, Parliament must take steps urgently to curb this menace. Candidates and political parties must give wide publicity to criminal cases pending against her/him in the local media, both print and electronic, after s/he files nomination to contest elections.