Criminalisation of Politics: 31% of Rajya Sabha MPs Have Declared Criminal Cases
GS-II: Parliament
| Electoral Reforms | Representation of the People | Governance
GS-IV: Probity in Public Life | Political Ethics
Why in News?
An analysis by the Association for
Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch examined affidavits of
226 of 233 Rajya Sabha MPs.
1.
31% have declared
criminal cases.
2.
16% have declared
serious criminal cases.
3.
1 MP declared a
murder-related case.
4.
4 MPs declared
attempt-to-murder cases.
5.
4 MPs declared cases
concerning crimes against women.
6.
31 MPs (14%) have declared
assets exceeding ₹100 crore.
Constitutional Position
1.
Article 80: Deals with the
composition of the Rajya Sabha.
2.
Article 84: Prescribes
qualifications for membership of Parliament.
3.
Article 102: Provides grounds
for disqualification of Members of Parliament.
4.
Article 324: Vests the
superintendence, direction and control of elections in the Election
Commission of India.
5.
Representation of the People Act, 1951
(RPA): Provides the principal statutory framework governing
qualifications, disqualifications and conduct of elections.
Disqualification on Conviction
1.
Section 8 of the RPA, 1951
provides for disqualification following conviction for specified offences.
2. The
crucial distinction for UPSC is:
Criminal Case Pending ≠ Conviction ≠ Automatic
Disqualification
3. This
protects the presumption of innocence, but prolonged trials can permit
persons facing serious charges to continue participating in electoral politics.
Supreme Court Linkages
Association for Democratic Reforms Case (2002)
The Supreme Court strengthened the
voter's right to know by requiring disclosure of candidates' criminal
antecedents, assets, liabilities and educational qualifications.
Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)
The Supreme Court struck down the
protection that had allowed sitting legislators to continue in office after
conviction while their appeals were pending.
Consequently, where the statutory conditions for
disqualification are satisfied, conviction can result in immediate
disqualification.
Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018)
The Court emphasised disclosure of
criminal antecedents but refrained from creating an additional disqualification
merely on the basis of criminal charges, observing that such legislative policy
falls within Parliament's domain.
Why Does Criminalisation Persist?
1.
Winnability Factor:
Political parties may prioritise electoral viability over candidate integrity.
2.
Money–Muscle Nexus:
Financial resources and local influence can provide significant electoral
advantages.
3.
Slow Judicial Process: Cases
involving politicians may remain unresolved across multiple electoral cycles.
4.
Weak Internal Party Democracy:
Candidate selection is often concentrated within party leadership.
5.
Voter Calculations:
Electors may sometimes prioritise identity, accessibility, patronage or
perceived effectiveness over criminal antecedents.
6.
Campaign Finance: High
electoral expenditure can increase dependence on candidates possessing
substantial financial networks.
Democratic Implications
1.
Rule of Law: Political
influence combined with criminal networks can weaken confidence in impartial
law enforcement.
2. Political
Equality: Money and coercive influence can distort a formally equal
electoral contest.
3. Legislative
Credibility: Serious criminalisation can weaken public trust in
representative institutions.
4. Governance
Quality: Patronage networks can influence public contracts,
administration and allocation of resources.
5. Political
Ethics: It creates tension between electoral winnability
and probity in public life.
6. The
problem is therefore wider than candidate eligibility; it concerns the quality
of representative democracy itself.
The Constitutional Dilemma
1.
Disqualifying candidates immediately
after allegations are made creates the danger of politically motivated
criminal cases.
2. Waiting
until final conviction, however, can become ineffective when trials continue
for many years.
3. Therefore,
reform must reconcile three objectives:
4. Electoral
Integrity + Speedy Justice + Presumption of Innocence
5. A
constitutionally balanced approach should consequently focus heavily on expedited
adjudication of serious cases, rather than treating either accusation or
indefinite judicial delay as satisfactory.
Reform Priorities
1.
Time-Bound Trials:
Expedite serious criminal cases involving legislators and candidates while
preserving due process.
2. Party
Accountability: Require meaningful justification and transparency
when parties nominate candidates with serious criminal antecedents.
3. Accessible
Disclosure: Present candidate antecedents in formats voters can
easily understand.
4. Political
Finance Reform: Improve transparency in campaign financing and
expenditure.
5. Institutional
Enforcement: Strengthen implementation of existing electoral and
disclosure requirements.
6. Internal
Party Democracy: Improve transparency and accountability in candidate
selection.