Criminalisation of politics, a concerning issue, is characterized by participation of criminals in government operations, such as contesting elections and obtaining legislative positions. Recently, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) unveiled a surge in candidates with criminal cases in Karnataka’s major political parties ahead of the 2023 Assembly Elections. However, despite ADR’s recommendation for permanent disqualification of candidates convicted of serious criminal offenses, these disqualifications are yet to be enforced.
Understanding the Criminalisation of Politics
The criminalisation of politics poses significant threats to democracy, impacting fundamental principles like fairness in elections, adherence to laws, and accountability. As per ADR data, India’s parliament has seen a rise in elected candidates with criminal charges since 2004, increasing from 24% in 2004 to 43% in 2019. By the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, 159 MPs declared serious criminal cases in their names, including charges of rape, murder, kidnapping, and crimes against women.
Root Causes of Criminalisation in Politics
Illegal actions like vote-buying, corruption, and misuse of power for personal gain contribute to the criminalisation of politics. Politicians often exploit links with their constituencies to perpetuate political crime. Furthermore, people frequently overlook candidates’ criminal backgrounds if they align with community interests, enabling criminals to be elected. The First Past the Post (FPTP) system, prevalent in most democracies, often benefits candidates who resort to muscle power when unable to gain the electorate’s trust.
The Role of Money Power and Poor Governance
Black money and mafia funds aid the criminalisation of politics by enabling electoral victory through vote-buying. Meanwhile, poor governance, characterized by an absence of electoral laws and inadequate enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, fosters criminalisation.
Implications of Criminalisation in Politics
The criminalisation of politics contravenes the principle of free and fair elections by limiting voters’ choice of suitable candidates. Elected law-breakers undermine good governance, tarnish the image of state institutions, and compromise public servants’ integrity. The resulting culture of violence and normalized corruption erodes public trust in the democratic system.
Legal Aspects of Disqualifying Criminal Candidates
While the Indian Constitution does not outline election disqualification criteria, the Representation of Peoples Act 1951 does. Section 8 mandates disqualification on conviction for certain offenses, barring individuals with a jail term exceeding two years from standing in an election for six years after their sentence concludes. However, pending criminal cases do not prevent individuals from contesting elections.
Initiatives and Recommendations Against Criminalisation of Politics
Several measures have been proposed to combat political criminalisation, including the Vohra Committee’s recommendation to identify and address the political-criminal nexus. The Law Commission and the Union government have suggested disqualifying charged individuals and establishing special courts to fast track criminal trials against MPs and MLAs, respectively. Additionally, the Supreme Court has issued multiple directives, such as enforcing candidate disclosure of criminal records.
Supreme Court Judgements on Political Criminalisation
Notable Supreme Court judgements related to political criminalisation include the Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002), Ramesh Dalal vs. Union of India (2005), and Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), among others, which have variously mandated financial, educational, and criminal disclosure by election candidates, and reinforced candidate disqualification upon criminal conviction.
Progressing Beyond Political Criminalisation
Committees on electoral reforms have encouraged state funding of elections and strengthened the Election Commission’s role in limiting political criminalisation. Further, citizens must remain vigilant against election fraud, and the judiciary should consider banning individuals with serious criminal charges from contesting elections. Lastly, an amendment to the RPA 1951 is needed to bar those with pending serious crimes from election candidacy.
