Author Ahana Banerjee St Xavier’s University
To the point
Imagine walking into a courtroom and finding the judge facing criminal charges. Now imagine that judge is also your elected representative. That’s the troubling reality of criminalization in Indian politics, where individuals accused of crimes ranging from attempted murder to hate speech and corruption are not only contesting elections—they’re winning them. India’s democracy, celebrated as the world’s largest, faces a paradox: a growing number of its lawmakers are themselves accused lawbreakers. Reports by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) show that nearly half of sitting MPs have criminal cases pending, with many facing serious, non-bailable offences. And yet, through loopholes in electoral law, long-drawn trials, and political normalization of crime, these individuals continue to shape legislation, vote on national policies, and influence millions of lives. This article takes a close look at the legal, political, and social dynamics that allow this trend to persist. It explores how provisions in the Representation of the People Act, Supreme Court rulings, and Election Commission guidelines have attempted to address the issue—but often without teeth. It also raises a fundamental question: Can a democracy truly thrive when those who write the laws are allowed to dodge them? India’s democracy, celebrated as the world’s largest, faces a paradox: a growing number of its lawmakers are themselves accused lawbreakers. Reports by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) show that nearly half of sitting MPs have criminal cases pending, with many facing serious, non-bailable offences. And yet, through loopholes in electoral law, long-drawn trials, and political normalization of crime, these individuals continue to shape legislation, vote on national policies, and influence millions of lives.
Use of Legal Jargon
The term criminalization of politics refers to the phenomenon where individuals with criminal backgrounds—some even facing charges like murder, attempt to murder, rioting, kidnapping, corruption, and sexual offences—contest and hold public office. Under Indian law, the primary legal provision governing the disqualification of such candidates is Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA). This section outlines specific conditions under which a person convicted of certain offences is barred from contesting elections, typically for a period of six years after conviction. However, the key word here is “conviction.” Until a court delivers a verdict, candidates—even those with dozens of pending criminal cases—can legally run for office. Other important legal concepts include the presumption of innocence, a fundamental principle of criminal law which ensures that no individual is treated as guilty until proven so. While essential for justice, this principle becomes problematic when exploited by powerful individuals to continue holding office despite being under serious criminal investigation. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has introduced various guidelines and directives, urging political parties to disclose the criminal backgrounds of their candidates and justify their selection, especially when alternatives with clean records are available. The Supreme Court, in several landmark judgments such as Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018), has emphasized the need for transparency and directed parties to publish criminal records of candidates on their websites and in the media. However, without legislative backing and stricter timelines for trials under fast-track courts, these measures remain more procedural than preventive. The lack of a debarment mechanism for accused candidates, unless convicted, means that many continue to exploit the legal gap—using delayed trials and political immunity to stay in power. As a result, terms like “tainted candidates,” “pending chargesheets,” and “non-bailable offences” are no longer exceptions in electoral politics—they’ve become familiar features. According to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a national watchdog, approximately 45% of state MLAs and more than 43% of Members of Parliament are facing criminal charges, many of them non-bailable offences . The Representation of the People Act, 1951, aims to curb this by enforcing disqualification only upon conviction under Section 8, but this leaves a massive window where accused individuals continue to contest and even legislate, exploiting the presumption of innocence—a core tenet in criminal jurisprudence. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has pushed for greater transparency, mandating political parties publish candidate profiles including criminal antecedents, especially after the Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India . However, without stricter timelines for trial or pre-conviction disqualification, these remain symbolic rather than substantive deterrents. Critics argue that delayed justice, patronage politics, and the ‘winnability over integrity’ paradigm create space for “tainted candidates” to thrive, eroding public trust and turning crime into an electoral asset . The judiciary has also attempted to respond: in 2017–18, the Supreme Court ordered fast-track courts to try sitting lawmakers. Yet, despite rolls of pending cases—including serious charges such as murder, attempt to murder, and crimes against women—conviction rates remain low, estimated around a mere 6% for politicians in 2019 As a result, terms like “pending chargesheet,” “non-bailable offence,” and “tainted candidate” have become normal in legislative discourse. The paradox remains stark: lawmakers often write laws from which they are personally exempt, raising foundational questions of democratic legitimacy and rule of law.
The proof
The criminalization of politics isn’t a minor issue—it’s a defining reality of modern Indian democracy. According to analysis by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), a staggering 46% of the 543 MPs elected in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls have ongoing criminal cases, with 31% facing serious charges such as murder, rape, kidnapping, or crimes against women . Alarmingly, 27 MPs are even convicted – highlighting the stark gap between prosecution and disqualification under current laws . Despite calls for reform, conviction rates remain abysmally low. Data submitted to the Supreme Court in 2018 revealed that only about 6% of cases against MPs and MLAs result in conviction, with 18 states and 2 Union Territories registering zero convictions . Such delayed justice not only wears down victims, but also enables many accused politicians to exploit legal inertia and hold office during long trials. In response to growing concern, the Supreme Court ruled in Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018) that political parties must publicly disclose candidates’ criminal histories in widely circulated media, and that elections should not be prolonged by a lack of transparency . The court also urged the ECI to ensure fast-track trials for lawmakers, although in practice, effective enforcement remains limited. These figures and judicial interventions paint a troubling picture: while half of India’s lawmakers enter Parliament with criminal baggage, the slow wheels of justice and incomplete electoral oversight allow them to retain power—raising urgent questions about the health and credibility of its democratic institutions.
Abstract
In a country where democracy is celebrated as a triumph of the people, the growing criminalization of politics in India reveals a deeply troubling paradox. Nearly half of India’s elected representatives now face criminal charges, including serious offences such as murder, sexual assault, and corruption. This article explores how individuals accused of breaking the law continue to make the law, exposing the fragile lines between power, accountability, and justice. Despite the safeguards in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which disqualifies convicted individuals from contesting elections, loopholes and delayed trials allow many to enter politics while under prosecution. The presumption of innocence, though fundamental to criminal law, is increasingly exploited by political candidates to remain in power for years—if not decades—before verdicts are reached. Through an examination of recent data from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and key judicial interventions like Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018), this article highlights the urgent need for electoral reform, faster trial mechanisms, and legal frameworks that prioritize integrity over influence. In doing so, it raises a critical question: Can a democracy remain truly representative when its lawmakers are shielded from the very laws they are sworn to uphold? Despite constitutional safeguards and electoral reforms, a significant portion of elected representatives in the country continue to face serious criminal charges, including offences such as murder, sexual assault, and corruption. This paper examines the intersection of law and political power, focusing on how loopholes in the Representation of the People Act, 1951, and delays in judicial proceedings enable individuals with pending criminal cases to contest and retain public office. Drawing on empirical data from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and landmark judgments such as Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018), and Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014), this article critically evaluates the effectiveness of existing legal provisions. It highlights the judiciary’s role in promoting transparency, the Election Commission’s regulatory challenges, and the limitations of relying solely on post-conviction disqualification as a preventive measure. The article concludes by proposing structural reforms, including fast-tracking trials of elected representatives, strengthening disclosure norms, and enacting legislation that balances the presumption of innocence with the public’s right to clean governance. In doing so, it argues for a shift from reactive judicial directives to proactive legislative accountability to restore trust in India’s democratic institutions.
Case Laws
1. Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018)
In this landmark case, the Supreme Court addressed the alarming rise in the number of candidates with criminal records contesting elections. The petitioners urged the Court to bar individuals with serious criminal charges from running for office, even before conviction. While the Court held that disqualification at the stage of mere accusation would violate the presumption of innocence, it made several crucial directions: political parties must publish the criminal antecedents of their candidates in newspapers and on their websites, and justify why such candidates were chosen over those without criminal records. This case reaffirmed the Court’s stance that electoral reform must come from Parliament, but also emphasized the need for transparency and voter awareness in curbing criminalization.
2. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)
This judgment was a turning point in Indian electoral law In the Representation of the People Act, Section 8(4) permitted convicted MPs and MLAs to remain in office provided they appealed within three months. However, the Supreme Court overturned this provision. The Court ruled that any elected representative convicted of a crime and sentenced to a minimum of two years of imprisonment would be disqualified immediately. This decision closed a legal loophole that had allowed many politicians to stay in office despite serious convictions and marked a strong step toward cleaner politics.
3. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
This case laid the foundation for voter’s right to know. The Supreme Court held that voters have a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech and expression) to know the background of electoral candidates. As a result of this ruling, candidates are now required to file affidavits disclosing their criminal, financial, and educational background at the time of filing their nomination papers. This judgment was a significant step toward empowering voters with information and ensuring a more informed electoral process.
4. Manoj Narula v. Union of India (2014)
In this case, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether individuals with criminal backgrounds should be appointed as ministers in the Union or State cabinets. While the Court did not lay down a binding disqualification, it strongly emphasized the constitutional morality expected from public office holders. The Court held that it was the constitutional duty of the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers to ensure that people with criminal records are not inducted into the executive, even if they are legally permitted to contest elections. The judgment reinforced the idea that ethics and integrity in public life are essential to preserve the sanctity of Indian democracy, even if the law does not yet mandate disqualification at the pre-conviction stage.
Conclusion
The criminalization of Indian politics is not just a legal dilemma—it is a democratic crisis. When nearly half of a nation’s lawmakers face criminal charges, it calls into question the very foundations of justice, accountability, and public trust. While the law continues to uphold the principle of innocent until proven guilty, the practical misuse of this safeguard allows powerful individuals to delay justice and use public office as a shield, rather than a responsibility. Judicial efforts, such as the rulings in Lily Thomas, Public Interest Foundation, and Manoj Narula, have been bold attempts to curb this trend. But despite these landmark decisions, loopholes in the Representation of the People Act, delayed trials, and weak political will have left these reforms largely toothless. The burden of change cannot rest on the judiciary alone—it must be met by strong legislative action and voter awareness. India needs more than just procedural transparency; it needs a cultural shift in how political merit is defined. Clean governance begins not at the ballot box, but in who is allowed to stand beside it. Until we demand integrity over influence and convictions over connections, the line between lawmakers and lawbreakers will remain dangerously blurred. This includes legislative amendments to the Representation of the People Act, incorporating provisions for pre-conviction disqualification in cases involving grave charges, subject to judicial scrutiny; the establishment of independent fast-track courts for expeditious trial of elected representatives; and the strengthening of the Election Commission’s enforcement capacity. Additionally, enhancing voter awareness, implementing robust intra-party democracy, and promoting ethical leadership are critical to reversing this trend. Ultimately, the decriminalization of politics is not merely a legal objective—it is a constitutional imperative to ensure that the legitimacy of lawmaking rests in the hands of those who uphold, not undermine, the rule of law.
FAQS
1. What is meant by “criminalization of politics” in India?
It refers to the increasing number of individuals with criminal backgrounds—some facing serious charges like murder, rape, extortion, and corruption—contesting and winning elections in India. These individuals often become MLAs or MPs, and in some cases, even hold ministerial positions, raising serious concerns about the integrity of the political system and the quality of governance.
2. Is it legal for someone with a criminal case to contest elections?
Yes, under current Indian law, a person charged with a crime can still contest elections unless they are convicted of an offence and sentenced to at least two years in prison. This is governed by Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Since trials in India often take years or even decades, many accused candidates remain eligible to run for and hold public office.
3. What are the main legal efforts to address this issue?
Several Supreme Court judgments have tried to address this problem. For instance, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), the Court disqualified convicted politicians from holding office. In Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018), political parties were required to publicly disclose the criminal records of their candidates. However, no law currently bars candidates from contesting elections based on pending charges alone.
4. Why do political parties still give tickets to candidates with criminal backgrounds?
One major reason is “winnability”—parties prioritize candidates who have money, muscle power, or local popularity, even if they have serious charges pending. In many regions, having a strongman image helps win votes. Until there is public and electoral pressure to reject such candidates, parties often place political gain over public interest.
5. What can voters do to stop this trend?
Voters have a powerful role. By using their right to information (thanks to Supreme Court rulings), they can check candidate affidavits to see their criminal, financial, and educational
backgrounds. Choosing cleaner candidates, questioning political parties on their choices, and participating in civic campaigns can help reduce the demand for tainted leaders. Accountable politics begins with informed voting.
6. Is there a solution to criminalization beyond courts and laws?
Yes. While legal reform is necessary, real change will come from a combination of speedy trials, electoral reforms, and most importantly, public awareness. Setting up fast-track courts, tightening laws on disqualification, and encouraging media and civil society to hold parties accountable can collectively shift the system. The ultimate goal is to ensure that politics becomes a space for public service, not personal protection.
