Author: Sreya Shah, Woxsen University
To the point
Nepotism has always been a burning issue in India, be it in politics, the legal institutions, or the entertainment industry. Nepotism is the practice of favouring relatives or close associates, especially by giving them jobs, positions, or advantages, regardless of merit. This article particularly targets the political nepotism in India.
Political nepotism refers to promoting or giving political power (such as party positions, election tickets, or ministerial posts) to family members or close associates, often at the expense of more deserving or qualified candidates. Dynasty politics has become unnervingly common in India because of a lack of legal guidelines and internal regulation of political parties. However, the main reason why dynasty rule is not broadly challenged in India is that the citizens of India are used to hierarchical rule for centuries. This article explores the historical roots, legal silence, and far-reaching effects of dynasty-driven politics, asking whether true democracy can thrive in a system that rewards inheritance over ability.
Abstract
Despite being the world’s largest democracy, politics in India is still dominated by dynasties. The Indian political landscape is filled with the successors or relatives of prominent leaders, continuing a legacy that opposes the foremost idea of democracy. When the members of the political parties are mostly from one dominating family, the deserving entrants are deprived of the top positions. Nonetheless, political nepotism is not illegal, nor are there any laws that regulate it. This article takes a closer look at how politics in India often runs in the family. It delves into how the practice of family ruling is supported by the citizens of India and how it affects the other candidates and becomes a barrier to the country’s progress.
Legal Jargon
Despite its widespread presence in politics, political nepotism exists in a grey area of law. It is undemocratic but not unconstitutional. The Indian legal framework does not prohibit political succession within families, nor does it define any criteria for merit-based candidacy.
However, political nepotism is a clear violation of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees the right to equality to the citizens of India. While this ensures equal opportunity in theory, the absence of regulatory policies within political parties often allows legacy candidates to dominate the political field. This is compounded by Article 19(1)(c), which guarantees the freedom to form associations, including political parties, thus giving parties full autonomy in selecting candidates, even based on lineage. Political parties are not legally required to uphold internal democracy, and although the Election Commission of India (ECI) encourages it through guidelines, there is no enforceable mandate.
The Law Commission’s 170th Report and 255th Report have both recommended reforms, including mandatory internal elections within political parties and transparency in candidate selection, but these remain unimplemented. In the case of PUCL v. Union of India (2003), the Supreme Court upheld the voter’s right to know, establishing the constitutional importance of transparency. However, even this has not translated into a framework that questions hereditary politics.
The proof
Over the years, we have witnessed political parties in India bashing one another for reinforcing political nepotism, but none of them opt for measures to eradicate this bug within their parties. The rise of the Nehru-Gandhi family set the tone for dynastic politics, creating a model in which political power passed from one generation to the next. Over time, this structure was replicated across states and parties, spanning regional outfits to national giants.
From M.K. Stalin in Tamil Nadu to Akhilesh Yadav in Uttar Pradesh, and from the Thackeray family in Maharashtra to the Abdullahs in Jammu and Kashmir, a growing number of Indian political leaders come from established families. A 2019 report by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) revealed that over 30% of Members of Parliament (MPs) under the age of 40 came from political families.
What fuels political nepotism in India is a long-standing mindset: one that treats leadership like legacy, where the next in line is expected to be the ruler’s own kin. There is an old saying in Hindi, “Raja ka beta hi Raja banega”; this principle continues to guide the Indian political system. Citizens often place greater trust in the families or successors of established leaders, finding it difficult to extend the same confidence to newcomers without a legacy.
Effects of political nepotism:
Due to the age-old dynasty politics in India, the deserving candidates from non-political backgrounds are deprived of higher positions in the parties. Hereditary politics not only violate the right to equality of the entrants but also hinder the nation’s progress. When the country is not in the right hands, development becomes unattainable. Hereditary politics in India prioritise the successors of the leaders, whether they are capable of the position or not. If the favouritism in politics continues to exist, then India will have to face a major problem.
Over the decades, what began as an exception has become the norm, blurring the line between democracy and inheritance, and raising critical questions about whether India’s largest democracy is truly open to all, or just to the well-connected few.
Case Laws
Political nepotism hasn’t faced direct legal challenges, but courts have repeatedly weighed in on issues that touch its edges, like transparency in elections and the need for internal democracy in political parties.
1. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
The Supreme Court held that voters have a fundamental right to know the background of candidates contesting elections, including their criminal records, assets, and educational qualifications.
Relevance: Though not about nepotism, this case empowers citizens to make informed choices, even when faced with legacy candidates.
2. People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003)
The Court reaffirmed the right to information as part of Article 19(1)(a), freedom of speech and expression, emphasizing that democracy thrives on transparency.
Relevance: It adds weight to arguments for mandatory disclosures, including political lineage and how candidates are chosen.
Conclusion
Political nepotism may not violate any explicit law, but it challenges the essence of a healthy, merit-based democracy. When democratic leadership becomes a dynastic rule, it not only undermines equal opportunity but also drains out the capable minds. However, change seems obtuse, but it is not impossible. When the law-making bodies decide to bring reforms to eradicate nepotism from politics, change might seem attainable. Legal reforms can be brought to regulate the internal democracy within the political parties to counter this burning issue. Legislative reforms such as those recommended by the Law Commission should be revisited to promote fairness and inclusivity. Ultimately, democracy is not just about voting rights but also about the right choices, and these choices must extend beyond family names.
FAQS
1. Is political nepotism illegal in India?
No. There is no specific law that prohibits political families from promoting or nominating their relatives. While it may be seen as undemocratic, political nepotism is not unconstitutional.
2. Why does political nepotism persist in Indian politics?
It continues due to a mix of voter familiarity with legacy names, lack of legal restrictions on candidate selection, and weak internal democracy within political parties. Political families often control party machinery, making it easier for relatives to rise.
3. Can political parties be forced to practice internal democracy?
The Election Commission of India recommends internal party elections and transparency, but there is no binding law enforcing it. Several Law Commission reports have suggested reforms, but they remain unimplemented.