In the news
- The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the National Election Watch has found that 36% of the newly elected Rajya Sabha candidates have declared criminal cases against themselves.
Context:
- Increase in Serious Crimes: 17% of total candidates face serious criminal charges, including with cases related to attempted murder, underscoring the gravity of the situation.
- Biased Representation: Approximately 21% of the candidates are billionaires, with assets exceeding Rs 100 crore, reflecting the significant wealth amassed by certain individuals in the political arena.
- Prevailing disparities: The majority (76%) of candidates belong to the 51-70 age group, with only 19% being women, reflecting gender disparities in political representation.
Why does Criminality persist in Indian politics?
- Political Patronage: Criminals seek political backing to sustain their illicit activities, while politicians rely on criminals for funding, muscle power, and electoral support.
- Protracted Legal Processes: Lengthy court proceedings, averaging around 15 years, coupled with declining conviction rates, allow criminals to evade justice and continue their political careers.
- Legal Ambiguity: Pending cases become a shield for tainted candidates, who exploit the “law will take its own course” narrative to deflect scrutiny.
- Electoral Advantage: Candidates with criminal records may have higher chances of winning elections, incentivizing parties to field them despite ethical concerns.
- Limited Scrutiny: Despite legal mandates for candidates to disclose criminal cases, voters often lack the awareness or resources to scrutinize this information effectively.
- Vote Bank Dynamics: Parties exploit caste, religious, or regional loyalties, prioritizing short-term gains over candidate integrity.
Impacts of Criminality in Indian politics:
- Corrosive Effects: The fusion of crime and politics has corrosive effects on the governance. The nexus between crime and politics can exacerbate corruption and weaken governance structures. When politicians with criminal backgrounds hold office, there is a higher likelihood of corruption, misuse of power, and a lack of transparency in decision-making processes, all of which can have detrimental effects on the economy.
- Undermining Democracy: Allowing criminals in politics undermines the development of a healthy democracy that India’s freedom fighters fought for. The impact extends to the provision of public goods. Research findings suggest that the effects are concentrated in less developed and more corrupt Indian states, indicating that the presence of criminal politicians hinders the effective delivery of public goods and services to constituents.
- Economic Growth: While criminal candidates may win elections in the short term, their presence can hinder the long-term development of a robust democracy. The election of criminally accused politicians leads to lower economic growth in their constituencies. Studies show a 22% point lower yearly growth in the intensity of night-time lights, which serves as a proxy for economic activity, following the election of such politicians.
Measures Taken to Address Criminalization in Politics
[A] Legislative Interventions
- Representation of the People Act, 1951: Sections 8(1), 8(2), and 8(3) establish grounds for disqualification of individuals convicted of certain offenses, barring them from contesting elections.
- Conduct of Election Rules, 1961: Mandates candidates to file affidavits disclosing pending criminal cases and convictions, enhancing transparency in electoral processes.
- Chapter IX A of Indian Penal Code: Defines and penalizes electoral offenses such as bribery and undue influence, deterring criminal activities in elections.
[B] Establishment of Special Courts
- Judicial Mechanisms: Special courts dedicated to expediting criminal cases against legislators and parliamentarians help ensure timely justice and accountability.
- Tackling Impunity: Targeted prosecution of political figures accused of criminal activities reduces impunity and strengthens the rule of law.
[C] Vohra Committee Report (1993)
- Comprehensive Analysis: The Vohra Committee investigated the political-criminal nexus, highlighting its extent and proposing strategies to combat this menace.
- Policy Recommendations: Recommendations from the report informed policy decisions aimed at disrupting criminal networks operating within political structures.
[D] Election Commission Initiatives
- Affidavit Reforms: Election Commission directives mandate candidates to declare criminal records, financial assets, and educational qualifications, empowering voters with crucial information.
- Moral Code of Conduct: Effective enforcement of ethical standards during elections minimizes the influence of criminal elements and promotes fair electoral practices.
Major Judicial Interventions
| Background | Key Outcome | Significance | |
| Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002) | Challenged lack of transparency in electoral processes regarding candidates’ records. | Supreme Court mandated Election Commission to compel candidates to disclose criminal, financial, and educational details. | Empowered voters with vital information for informed choices, fostering accountability in elections. |
| Ramesh Dalal vs. Union of India (2005) | Imposed disqualification criteria for convicted candidates. | Supreme Court ruled sitting MPs/MLAs would be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more. | Established stringent disqualification criteria to deter candidates with criminal backgrounds, enhancing integrity of elected representatives. |
| Lily Thomas vs. Union of India (2013) | Addressed interpretation of Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. | Supreme Court declared Section 8(4) unconstitutional, disqualifying legislators convicted and sentenced to two years or more. | Closed loopholes allowing convicted legislators to retain seats, reinforcing accountability and integrity in the political system. |
| People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (2013) | Addressed voters’ rights to reject candidates with criminal backgrounds through NOTA. | Supreme Court ruled voters could reject all candidates using NOTA in electronic voting machines (EVMs). | Introduced NOTA as a voting option, empowering voters to express dissatisfaction with criminalized politics, and promoting cleaner elections. |
Way Forward
- Decriminalization Legislation: Enact laws to prevent individuals facing serious criminal charges from contesting elections, ensuring that those with criminal backgrounds are barred from political office.
- State Funding of Elections: Introduce state funding of elections to reduce the influence of money and muscle power, thereby minimizing the role of criminals in financing political campaigns.
- Enhanced Voter Awareness: Educate voters about the detrimental effects of criminalization in politics and provide easily accessible information about candidates’ backgrounds to enable informed decision-making.
- Empowering Election Commission: Grant Election Commission broader regulatory powers to enforce inner-party democracy, regulate party finances, and curb the influence of criminals in political parties.
- Continued Judicial Oversight: Uphold the judiciary’s role in safeguarding electoral integrity by delivering landmark judgments that reinforce accountability, transparency, and ethical conduct among elected representatives.
- Strict Enforcement of Disqualification Criteria: Ensure strict implementation of disqualification criteria for convicted politicians, irrespective of their appeals or legal maneuvers.
Try this question from CS Mains 2017:
Q. Young people with ethical conduct are not willing to come forward to join active politics. Suggest steps to motivate them to come forward. (150 Words, 10)
Post your responses here.
