Open Access Research Article
CRIMINALIZATION OF POLITICS IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
CRIMINALIZATION
OF POLITICS IN INDIA
AUTHORED
BY - JEEVARTH S GOPI
ABSTRACT
India's the world's largest Democracy
and yet, the nation's internal political system is plagued by some of the most
basic issues. Democracy must serve as the foundation of society. It is
necessary to make an effort to make society democratic. The value system of
Indian folks should be Democracy. The burden of ensuring Democracy's existence
cannot be placed solely on state institutions. Citizens have an equal role to
play in Democracy's healthy functioning. As a result, there is little doubt
that election reforms are essential for achieving a viable democratic India.
The distillation of general will is the goal of electoral reforms. Criminals
must not be allowed to participate in the hallowed democratic process of
getting General Will.
Elections are stepping stones toward
Democracy. In the electoral system, honesty should not be a deterrent but
rather a reward. The immediate necessity for legalizing politics is to
eliminate the patronage politicians and political parties supply to criminals.
The administration must have a strong political resolve to decriminalize the
entire political system by adopting tough measures and enacting the necessary
legislation.
The criminal-political relationship
must be broken as soon as possible. The citizens of the country won't just lose
faith in its politics and their political representatives, but in Democracy
itself if immediate action isn’t taken. Our republic will be irreparably
damaged as a result of this. Electoral reform decisions should be adhered to in
the letter. There is a dire need for stringent legislation to regulate party
funds, distribution, and expenditure. Political parties should maintain, audit,
and publish regular accounts that are open to public examination. There is also
a need to establish special courts to hear cases of political criminality.
Keywords: politics, government, criminalisation, Indian Democracy,
elections, politicians.
INTRODUCTION
India, as a nation, is
engaged in a vigorous fight against corruption but with little success. Despite
legislation, politicians have evaded corruption charges owing to their
parliamentary privileges and assistance from the police. As per the
Constitution, to be eligible to serve in Parliament, a person must be an Indian
citizen and not be disqualified by any act of Parliament. However, it is
amusing that the politicians have been permitted to contest in elections
despite having a criminal record. As instructed by the Supreme Court, the
Election Commission issued an order under Article 324 in June 2002 requiring
each candidate to file an affidavit mentioning in detail their criminal
histories, assets, spouses, dependents etc.
The link between
politics and crime, which has been ingrained in the political process, makes
India's fight against corruption even more difficult. Political parties'
unwillingness to reject candidates with criminal histories demonstrates the
structural breakdown in upholding moral leadership. Political parties still
field candidates with criminal backgrounds in spite of the Election
Commission's and the judiciary's repeated interventions; they frequently use
"winnability" as an excuse rather than honesty. In addition to undermining
public confidence in democratic institutions, this feeds the cycle in which
lawbreakers set the rules, making substantive reform difficult to achieve.
On the other hand,
political parties cried wolf, claiming that the EC and the Supreme Court had
overstepped their authority. A Legislation was passed in 2003 prohibiting
felons from being elected to legislative bodies. Still, criminals are allowed
to wander the halls of parliament and state legislatures, and the obfuscation
of their criminal histories adds to the irony by creating lawmakers out of
law-breakers.
WHAT
IS THE CRIMINALISATION OF POLITICS?
"Criminalisation of
politics" refers to the participation of criminals in politics, including
the ability of criminals to contest in elections and be elected to the
Parliament and state legislatures.
It occurs primarily as a result of a
link between politicians and criminals.
The origins of political criminalisation
may be traced back to flaws in socio-political systems. Religion, caste, lack
of political accountability, and the influence of various interest groups and
money all play a role in influencing the growth of political criminalisation,
and this is due primarily to people's inability to appreciate the power of the
vote, which has occurred due to a variety of influencing factors.
CAUSES
OF CRIMINALISATION OF POLITICS
Corruption thrives when there is a
disregard for the law, compounded by the criminalisation of politics.
Corruption has infiltrated every nook and cranny of India's political
structure, which is now blatantly prevalent. Politics has become even more
criminalized as a result of this corruption. Indian society is deeply divided
into several issues, and politics is often founded on those divides. Taking
advantage of such schisms, criminals enter the electoral fray by posing
themselves as the defenders of their castes, religions, communities, and so on.
People, in general, do not bother to
investigate the criminal backgrounds of candidates, preferring instead to focus
on caste, race, religion, community, and linguistic ancestry. Specific ancient
political systems, such as hereditary politics and lifelong politics,
exacerbate the problem. In Indian politics, there is no such thing as a
retirement policy, and some party leaders never retire[1]
Criminals in politics are further
emboldened by the lax enforcement of the law and the sluggish judicial system,
which enables them to influence the system for their own benefit. Numerous
politicians who are facing serious charges nevertheless occupy powerful
positions, which causes legal proceedings to be delayed by legal technicalities
and bureaucratic snags. Furthermore, the lack of a strong system to stop
convicted people from entering politics again emphasizes how ineffective the
current election reforms are. The idea of a democracy free from corruption will
remain a pipe dream until structural adjustments are made to eliminate the
connection between politics and crime.
RIGHT
TO KNOW ABOUT A CANDIDATE
When the public has access to
information about a candidate, voters may make an educated decision when
voting. This increases election openness and fairness. Based on a suit filed in
1995, the Supreme Court ordered that throughout the nomination process, every
candidate seeking elections must reveal the following:
i. Educational
credentials
ii. The candidate's and his or her family's
assets and liabilities
iii. Criminal background
The Right to Information Act falls
short of expectations. Despite the Commission's efforts to reduce political
criminalisation, it has not achieved the expected consequences.
STATUTES
AND CASE LAWS TO EVALUATE AND
ANALYZE
Those who break the law should not make the law[2]
The Constitution has no provisions
specifically addressing the nature/scope of disqualification; instead, it
provides for the Parliament to define the extent of disqualification of a
person who isn't a member of the legislature. The absence of statutory prohibitions
does not imply that those with criminal or corrupt pasts are excluded.[3]
Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e)
state that if a member of either House of Parliament or House of the State
Legislature is disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament. his seat
automatically becomes vacant under Articles 101(3)(a) and 193(1)(a) of the
Constitution and Parliament cannot make a provision (as was done in Section
8(4) of the Representative of People Act,1951)
Section 8(4) of the RPA
is unconstitutional because it permits MPs and MLAs who are convicted while
serving as members to remain in office until their appeal against the
conviction is heard vide Lily Thomas v. Union of India[4] and India v. Saka Venkata Rao[5]
Although Parliament can pass
legislation to "decide on disqualification," it cannot "preserve
and protect" its members guilty of crimes.
In Lok Prahari v. Election Commission
of India[6], The SC,
upholding the precedence of the Ravi Kant Patil and Lily Thomas cases, stated
that disqualification under Section 8 will not operate if an appellate court
stays a conviction under Section 389 of the CrPC. The Supreme Court upheld the
rulings in Ravi Kant Patil v. Sarvabhouma S. Bagali and Lily Thomas v. Union of
India in Lok Prahari v. Election Commission of India, highlighting the
circumstances in which a convicted person may be barred from running for
office. The interpretation of Section 8 of the Representation of the People
Act, 1951 (RPA) and how it interacts with Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
(CrPC), which addresses sentence suspension and bail issuance while an appeal
is pending, were at the centre of the case. The Court ruled that if an
appellate court stays the conviction under Section 389 of the CrPC, the
disqualification under Section 8 of the RPA will not apply. This means that
simply appealing a conviction does not automatically eliminate the
disqualification; nevertheless, the candidate will be allowed to run for office
if the appellate court specifically pauses the conviction (rather than just the
penalty). The ruling emphasized that the authority to stay a conviction should
be used carefully, taking into account the impact on governance, the nature of
the conduct, and the public interest. The Supreme Court struck a compromise between
keeping criminals out of politics and making sure that others aren't unjustly
excluded by sustaining this principle.
The Supreme Court reaffirmed the
fundamental idea that free and fair elections are a necessary component of a
democratic society in MS Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner[7]. The Court
acknowledged that elections must be held in a way that preserves the democratic
process and guarantees that no candidate, particularly one with a criminal
history, is given an undue advantage. The decision underlined that a corrupted
election process destroys democracy and erodes public confidence in the
government. The Election Commission of India (ECI), building on this idea, has
suggested more stringent steps to stop the growing tendency of criminality in
politics. Politicians accused of egregious crimes should not be allowed to run
for office if the case was filed at least a year before to the elections and
the Court has framed charges, according to one of the ECI's main
recommendations. In order to lessen the influence of criminal elements in
politics, this plan seeks to bar those who are facing major criminal
accusations from participating in elections. This recommendation is supported
by two arguments. First and foremost, it aims to stop the abuse of legislative
loopholes that permit accused politicians to run for office again in spite of
grave accusations like corruption, rape, murder, or kidnapping. By prohibiting
the use of fabricated or politically motivated instances as a means of unfairly
disqualifying candidates, it also seeks to achieve a balance. The ECI hopes to
prevent cases from being frivolously filed just before elections in an attempt
to sway the results by requiring that the case be submitted at least a year
beforehand.If put into practice, this suggestion might be a big step toward
decriminalizing politics and boosting public trust in the election process. Its
implementation, however, would need robust legal support and judicial
supervision to guarantee that it is not abused for political ends while yet
successfully barring criminals from running for office.
NOTA was
introduced in PUCL vs Union of India[8] it allows voters to exercise their “right not to vote
while maintaining their right of secrecy”. It gave provisions for voters to
cast a vote under “None Of The Above” category if none of the electoral
candidates appealed to them. It also stated that if a person was found guilty
by the election commission, they would be disqualified.
In Public Interest Foundation v.
Union of India[9], PIL was
filed, requesting the Supreme Court to establish guidelines or a framework to
address the threat of criminalisation of politics and prohibit those charged
with serious crimes from contesting elections. In order to preserve the
integrity of the electoral process and bolster democracy, the petitioners
sought the Court to create a comprehensive framework that would forbid those
accused of major crimes from running for office.
Given the gravity of the situation,
the Supreme Court ruled that it might establish necessary rules to guarantee
increased election transparency even though it could not make laws on the
subject because that is the responsibility of Parliament. The Court underlined
that voters must fully understand the criminal histories of candidates before
making an educated decision and restated that free and fair elections are a
fundamental component of the Constitution.
The Supreme Court issued the
following required orders in an effort to improve accountability and
transparency:
- Information Disclosure: When
running for office, candidates must complete nomination forms that contain
all pertinent information, especially any outstanding criminal charges.
This is to guarantee that voters are not misinformed about any important
facts.
- Emphasizing Criminal
Antecedents: In the nomination forms, the candidate’s criminal history
must be clearly stated in bold characters. This stage ensures clarity and
visibility by preventing candidates from hiding such information in fine
print.
- Notification to Political
Parties: Those who are accused of crimes are required to disclose their
criminal records to their respective political parties. This deters
political parties from fielding candidates with criminal histories by
holding them personally responsible for the people they select.
- Publication on Party Websites:
On their official websites, political parties are required to post the
criminal histories of their candidates. This guarantees that the media,
civil society organizations, and voters can easily obtain such
information.
- Broad Media Publicity: In order
to guarantee that voters are as informed as possible, newspapers,
television, and other media outlets must extensively publish candidates'
criminal histories as well as the specifics of the political parties that
are supporting them. The Court stipulated that following the candidate's
nomination filing, this information must be disseminated at least three
times. Voters have enough time to evaluate candidates' credibility because
of this frequent dissemination, which also guards against last-minute
manipulation.
Importance of the Decision: This historic ruling sought to provide voters with the
knowledge they needed about the histories of candidates and to hold political
parties accountable for maintaining moral standards when choosing candidates. [10] However,
because it would be against Indian law to disqualify a candidate before
conviction, the verdict did not completely bar candidates from facing criminal
charges. In order to purge the political
system democratically, the Court instead placed a strong emphasis on openness
and public accountability in the hopes that voters would reject candidates with
criminal histories.
Although the Supreme Court's ruling
in this case was a significant step in combating the criminalization of
politics,[11] political
will and voter understanding will ultimately determine how effective it
is. The decision upheld the fundamental
idea that voters must actively oppose criminal elements in electoral politics
and that political parties must assume accountability for maintaining clean
governance.
CONCLUSION
Based on the study, it can be
determined that the standards, practices, and announcements of political
parties competing in elections have steadily deteriorated. To win elections,
money, muscular force, corrupt methods, and unfair means are openly deployed.
Parliament and the Election Commission have made several efforts to prevent the
criminalisation of Indian politics, but nothing significant has been accomplished.
Election misconduct can be addressed by legislative means. Stringent
regulations can be passed democratically to aid constitutional institutions
such as the Election Commission of India or specifically formed committees to
stop this trend.
The media's involvement in reducing
the criminalisation of politics is noteworthy. Due to their involvement in
informing the general public about political parties, their manifestos, and
exposing their electoral malpractices, the function of the media becomes
considerably more meaningful and relevant during elections.
However, for various reasons, the
media has not been able to carry out its basic responsibilities. As a result,
the problem of political criminality and the rapid decline of political ethics is
the result of a confluence of several factors, as indicated above. Several
committees/commissions, like the Vohra Committee, have been appointed to look
into the issue of political criminalization.
The right to information can be used
to investigate political parties, candidates, sources of income, election
expenditures, and manifesto fulfilment, among other things. The word of the
Court must reach the lawmakers' inner conscience. The Supreme Court has ordered
the government to establish special tribunals to conduct time-limited trials of
lawmakers accused of corruption and criminality. The Election Commission of
India (ECI) should have the authority to examine political parties' financial
statements, or political parties' funds should be subject to RTI.
On all of these fronts, public
opinion must be mobilized. Individual politicians with criminal records must be
opposed, but the crisis can only be addressed via more comprehensive
institutional reform.
[1] Trilochan
Sastry, ‘Towards the De-Criminalization of Politics,’ a talk at IIC, New Delhi
( 2013)
[3] Lily Thomas v.
Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 653
[4] Lily Thomas v.
Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 653
[5] India v. Saka
Venkata Rao AIR 1953 SC 210
[7] MS Gill v.
Chief Election Commissioner 1978 AIR 851
[8] People’s Union
for Civil Liberties v Union of India (2013) 10 SCC 1
[9] Public Interest
Foundation v. Union of India WP (C) No. 536 of 2011, decided on December 16,
2013
[10] Magesan, A., Szabó, A. and Ujhelyi, G., 2024. Candidate
Selection by Parties: Crime and Politics in India. Working Paper.
[11] Kumar, A., 2014. Criminalisation of politics. Delhi: Rawat
Publications.
Article Information
CRIMINALIZATION OF POLITICS IN INDIA
Authors: JEEVARTH S GOPI
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2025/03/24
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.