Supreme Court Order For Criminal Politicians

Table of Contents

The SC Judgement

On 13^th February 2020 ,the Supreme Court bench of Justices R F Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat ordered political parties to publish the criminal antecedents of their candidates for Assembly and Lok Sabha polls.
The parties should also publish detailed reasons that made them choose those with criminal records over other candidates, within 48 hours of the selection of the candidates.

What crime is the candidate accused of?
How many cases? What kind of case?
Case details – case no., name of court
What stage has the criminal case reached –
FIR, Investigation, Chargesheet or trial
Why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates?

** “Winnability” of a candidate cannot be the only reason for selection.

Website of party
Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter
One local vernacular
One national newspaper
Right now, political parties offer no explanation on why candidates with pending criminal cases are selected as candidates.

The political party concerned shall submit a report of compliance with these directions with the Election Commission within 72 hours of the selection of the said candidate.
If a political party fails to submit such compliance report, the Election Commission shall bring such non-compliance by the political party concerned to the notice of the Supreme Court as being in contempt of the Court’s orders.
Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution which deal with the contempt power of the Supreme Court and enforcement of its decrees and orders
Contempt case will be filed against Party president .

Supreme court passed the recent orders on a contempt plea which raised the issue of criminalisation of politics claiming that directions given by the apex court in its September 2018 verdict given by a five-judge Constitution Bench, relating to disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates are not being followed.

The voters are aware of the antecedents of candidates.
Political parties will have to upload details of criminal cases pending against their candidates on their websites.
The candidates will have to furnish such information in their election affidavit and also publish it in a “widely-circulated newspaper”.

Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951
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.
But those facing trial, no matter how serious the charges, are free to contest elections
The fact that cases drag on in courts for years makes this provision virtually ineffective.
A 2014 report of the Law Commission 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.”
An affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court in 2018 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, the affidavit said.

It began in late 1970s
No law barring criminal candidates.
Alarming increase in criminalisation of politics in the last four general elections.

233 of 539 (43%) elected to Lok Sabha in 2019 had declared pending criminal cases in affidavits.

SC Judgement –
“A time has come that the Parliament must make law to ensure that persons facing serious criminal cases do not enter into the political stream. It is one thing to take cover under the presumption of innocence of the accused but it is equally imperative that persons who enter public life and participate in law making should be above any kind of serious criminal allegation. It is true that false cases are foisted on prospective candidates, but the same can be addressed by the Parliament through appropriate legislation. The nation eagerly waits for such legislation, for the society has a legitimate expectation to be governed by proper constitutional governance. The voters cry for systematic sustenance of constitutionalism.”

Over reach by judiciary?
Guidelines would have sufficed
Use of Contempt power wrong?
Suitability of candidates is a subjective matter.
The Representation of the People Act (RPA) does not bar individuals who have criminal cases pending against them from contesting elections.