Criminalization of Politics

In News

• According to a National Election Watch and Association for Democratic Rights (ADR) survey, 40 percent of the newly elected members have declared criminal cases, while 12 percent have serious criminal cases pending against them.

Criminalization of Politics

• About:
  • The criminalization of politics means the participation of criminals in politics.
  • It means that persons with criminal background contest in the election and get selected as a member of parliament or state legislature.
• Reasons for Criminalisation of Politics:
  • Lack of Political Will: It remains the most persistent problem. Till date most efforts to reform the electoral system have been taken by EC and the Supreme Court (SC) only. It is parliament’s responsibility to amend the Representation of People Act 1951, which deals with disqualification of candidates against whom charges have been proved in court for serious offences.
  • Muscle Power and Corruption: Use of muscle power by politicians to collect votes in their favour. Also, the use of money and other freebies in form of cash and kind both affect the final results of the election to a large extent.
  • Model Code of Conduct: Its blatant violation is seen in almost all elections.
  • Limited Awareness: Making voters aware of candidates with criminal antecedents has its limitations.
  • Lack of Governance: The SC’s orders or other legal mechanisms are not fully followed thereby creating an anarchic environment in the country. Law breakers end up becoming law makers.
  • Polarisation Towards Caste/Religions: People still go by the caste system and favour candidates on its basis instead of considering the actual background of the candidate.

Law Commission Reports 

• The Law commission in its 179th report recommended an amendment to the Representation of people act 1951. 
  • It suggested the people with criminal backgrounds should be disqualified for five years or until acquittal.
  •  It also recommended that the person who wants to contest the election must furnish details regarding any pending case, with the copy of the FIR/complaint, and also furnish details of all assets. But no action was taken on the recommendation by the government due to a lack of consensus amongst the political parties.

Supreme Court’s Observations 

• It is mandatory for all political parties to publish all details regarding pending criminal cases against their chosen candidates, not only in local newspapers, but also on party websites and social media handles.
• Directions to ensure the asset disclosure and criminal records of candidates.
• Establishment of special courts in all States for the quick disposal of cases involving elected representatives.

Suggested Measures

• Scrutinizing Criminal Background: Persons accused of crimes should not be allowed to stand in elections. The political parties should themselves not give tickets to tainted people.
• Judiciary’s Role: It should decide the pending and new cases expeditiously. Also, the SC had ordered parties to publish details of candidates with pending criminal cases and reasons why they could not have selected a candidate without such a record. Such recommendations should be followed in totality.
• Show-cause Notice by EC: EC should issue show-cause notices to parties if it finds the reasons they give for selecting a candidate with criminal antecedents not in consonance with the intent or purport of Constitution
• Giving EC More Powers: EC can register a political party but cannot deregister it. Regulating the affairs of a political party is essential for a cleaner electoral process hence imperative to strengthen EC.
• Following Committees’ Recommendations: The recommendations of N N Vohra Committee, Inderjeet Committee, Dinesh Goswami Committee and others should be implemented.
• Amending RPA: RPA should be amended to debar a person with a heinous crime record from contesting elections.
• Campaign Financing: It should be made more transparent. Electoral Bonds are a start in this process but it is only scratching the surface.
• NOTA: The SC in People’s Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India, 2013 ruled that voters should have the option of NOTA on the Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) to ensure the option for those who do not find any candidate suitable. This option is not yet being fully used. If the percentage share of valid votes is maximum for NOTA, then elections should be held null and void so that final power actually remains with the citizens of India. 

Way Forward

• There cannot be an electoral reform without judicial and police reforms. 
• The Representation of the People Act, 1951, the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and other provisions should assist in the successful implementation of electoral reforms. 
• The investigation and trial of cases should be expedited and there should be an effort to disseminate information to voters.
• Making elections free and fair should be the only motive while implementing changes.

Source: IE