Criminalisation of Politics | Latest Burning Issues

Table of Contents

UPSC PERSPECTIVE

CIVIL SERVICES MAINS GENERAL STUDIES PAPER 2

Indian Constitution- historical underpinnings, evolution, features, amendments, significant provisions and basic structure. Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act.

SUPREME COURT ON CRIMINALISATION OF POLITICS

The Supreme Court’s constitution bench, in its judgment in Public Interest Foundation & Others v Union of India

WHAT SC SAID

The bench, comprising the Chief Justice of India, Dipak Misra and Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, in its unanimous judgment, said In a multi-party democracy, where members are elected on party lines and are subject to party discipline, we recommend to the Parliament to bring out a strong law whereby it is mandatory for the political parties to revoke membership of persons against whom charges are framed in heinous and grievous offences and not to set up such persons in elections, both for the Parliament and the State assemblies. This, in our alternative and plausible view, would go a long way in achieving decriminalisation of politics and usher in an era of immaculate, spotless, unsullied and virtuous constitutional democracy.

WHAT ARE THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE VERDICT?

Parties – The Supreme Court directed political parties to publish online the pending criminal cases of their candidates. Rapid criminalisation of politics cannot be arrested by merely disqualifying tainted legislators. Cleansing politics from criminal elements begins only with purifying political parties itself. As, political parties are the central institution of India’s democracy. They play a central role in the interface between private citizens and public life.

PARLIAMENT

It urged the Parliament to bring a “strong law” to cleanse political parties of leaders facing trial for serious crimes.
Parliament should frame a law that makes it obligatory for political parties to remove leaders charged with “heinous and grievous” crimes.
Parties must refuse ticket to offenders in both parliamentary and Assembly polls.
The Bench made it clear that the court cannot legislate for Parliament by introducing disqualification to ban such candidates from contesting elections.

CANDIDATES

The court directed that candidates should disclose their criminal past to the Election Commission in “block letters.”
Candidates should make a full disclosure of the criminal cases pending against them to their political parties as well.
The parties, in turn, should put up the complete details of their candidates on their websites for public view.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

During arguments, Attorney General KK Venugopal, representing the centre, had said that denying a person the right to contest polls on a party ticket would amount to denying them the right to vote, which includes the right to contest. “Mere allegation cannot prevent a member from contesting.”
The court, he asserted, can’t remain oblivious of the fact that political aspirants are often framed in cases ahead of polls and said that fast-track courts to try accused politicians were “the only solution”.

COURT’S LOST CHANCE ?

Ban on convicted politicians but not undertrials Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951, bans convicted politicians But those facing trial, no matter how serious the charges, are free to contest elections The political parties are united in their opposition to any law, which debars perpetrators of heinous offences during the pendency of cases They hold that this could lead to wrong cases being filed against candidates

COURT’S LOST CHANCE ?

Representation of the People Act (RPA) states that an individual punished with a jail term of more than two years cannot stand in an election for six years after the jail term has ended.
Cases drag on in courts for years, which makes this provision virtually ineffective. It even cited a 2014 report of the Law Commission, which pointed out that “disqualification upon conviction has proved to be incapable of curbing the growing criminalisation of politics, owing to long delays in trials and rare convictions.”

NOTES

An affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court in March by the Centre also testifies to the shortcomings of the RPA’s disqualification clause:
There are more than 3,800 criminal cases against 1,765 MPs and MLAs across the country, of which 3,045 cases are pending