Author: Akanksha Singh, Asian Law College, Noida
To the Point
One of the biggest dangers to Indian democracy is the criminalization of politics. Even though India is the largest democracy in the world, there is a troubling trend: politicians with major criminal convictions are being elected to State Assemblies and Parliament. This jeopardizes the constitutional goal of transparent and responsible governance in addition to eroding public confidence in the democratic process. This threat has been addressed by a number of rulings, laws, and election reforms, but political indifference, legal flaws, and court system delays have allowed the problem to worsen.
Use of Legal Jargon
Election disqualification, pending criminal charges, conviction, public interest litigation (PIL), constitutional morality, judicial activism, presumption of innocence, and the Representation of the People Act, 1951 are among the legal concepts discussed in the article. Understanding the legal issues raised by criminalization and the potential for reform within the legal system depends on knowing these terms.
The Proof
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) said that 43% of the Members of Parliament elected in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections were still facing criminal charges. Of these, 29% were
charged with major offenses such as crimes against women, rape, murder, attempted murder, and kidnapping. Elections in different states show similar patterns. For example, about 68% of the victorious candidates in the 2020 Bihar Assembly elections had filed criminal charges against themselves.
Candidates with such backgrounds continue to win elections in spite of public awareness and media scrutiny. This demonstrates that, although their importance, current legislation and court initiatives fall short of completely decriminalizing Indian politics.
Abstract
In India, the term “criminalization of politics” describes the growing number of people with criminal histories entering electoral politics and continuing to serve in government. This tendency threatens public trust, erodes democratic institutions, and erodes the rule of law. Political parties still nominate candidates with criminal histories, claiming “winnability,” in spite of constitutional protections and court rulings. The legal aspects of criminalizing politics, judicial interventions, statutory constraints, and the urgent need for reforms are all examined in this study. It also emphasizes how voters and public society contribute to maintaining political accountability.
Case Laws
1. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002)
The Election Commission was ordered by this historic ruling to require candidates to provide their financial, educational, and criminal histories when submitting their nomination papers. In accordance with Article 19(1)(a), this established the idea that the right to know is an essential component of freedom of speech and expression.
2. Union of India v. Lily Thomas (2013)
Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which had previously permitted guilty MPs to remain in office while appealing, was overturned by the Supreme Court. According to the Court, any MP or MLA found guilty of a crime and given a sentence of two years or more will be instantly disqualified.
3. Union of India v. Public Interest Foundation (2019)
While acknowledging its limitations in excluding candidates with outstanding criminal convictions, the Supreme Court ordered political parties to make their candidates’ criminal histories and the rationale behind their selection public. The Court underlined that parties need to provide justification for selecting a candidate with a criminal record over one without.
4. State of Bihar v. Krishna Kumar Singh (2017)
The significance of constitutional morality in government was brought to light by this case. The ruling reaffirmed the notion that elected officials must protect the public’s trust and refrain from abusing their power, even though it did not specifically address prosecution.
Conclusion
Because of the connection between crime, money, and power, criminalizing politics has grown commonplace in India. Even though the judiciary has intervened with progressive rulings, this problem cannot be solved by law alone. Comprehensive electoral reform is desperately needed, with changes to reject candidates with significant criminal accusations, ensure swift prosecutions, and give the Election Commission of India more authority.
The roles of the media, civic society, and voters are equally significant. Political parties may be forced to offer clean candidates via public discussions, awareness efforts, and citizen pressure. Only by working together—legally, politically, and socially—can India hope to purge criminal elements from its democratic system and preserve the spirit of the Constitution.
FAQS
Q1. What is meant by criminalization of politics?
It refers to the rising participation of individuals with criminal records in electoral politics, where they contest and often win elections despite having serious criminal charges.
Q2. How may applicants with criminal records be disqualified under the law?
The legal foundation is provided by the Representation of the People Act, 1951, particularly Section 8, which establishes requirements for disqualification based on conviction.
Q3. Is it possible for a candidate to run for office while still facing criminal charges?
Indeed. Only a conviction results in disqualification under the current legislation. No matter how serious, pending lawsuits do not disqualify a candidate.
Q4. How has this matter been handled by the Supreme Court?
The Court has required accountability and openness through rulings such as ADR (2002), Lily Thomas (2013), and Public Interest Foundation (2019), but it has not disqualified candidates on the basis of ongoing charges, citing the separation of powers.
Q5. What changes are required to solve this problem?
Change the law to prohibit candidates who have significant pending accusations against them, particularly those that were filed six months before to the election.
To resolve criminal cases against politicians in less than a year, establish fast-track courts. Require political parties to adhere to disclosure regulations more strictly.
Give the Election Commission the authority to act decisively.
To reduce the power of money and force, support public funding of elections.
