Criminalisation in Politics

Home > Current Affairs  > Criminalisation in Politics

23 Apr Criminalisation in Politics

Posted at 23 Apr 2024 in Current Affairs by
0 Likes

THIS ARTICLE COVERS ‘DAILY CURRENT AFFAIRS’ AND THE TOPIC DETAILS “Criminalisation in politics”. THIS TOPIC IS RELEVANT IN THE “Polity” SECTION OF GS2 IN THE UPSC CSE EXAM.

In a recent amicus curiae report submitted to the Supreme Court, it was revealed that candidates with criminal backgrounds secured more seats in the 17th Lok Sabha compared to those with clean records. As the country heads into the second phase of polling for the 18th Lok Sabha, the report underscored the crucial necessity for voters to be informed about the individuals they are electing into power.

Senior advocate Vijay Hansaria, serving as the amicus curiae, emphasized that voters have a fundamental right to information, which is inherent in their right to free speech and expression. Specifically, he stressed that voters should have access to comprehensive details regarding the criminal history of candidates, including the status of ongoing trials and reasons for any delays.

To facilitate this, the report recommended the establishment of a dedicated section on the homepages of State High Courts’ websites. This section would offer district-wise information about criminal trials involving legislators, prominently displaying updates on each case and explanations for any procedural delays. Such transparency, the report argued, would empower citizens and voters to make more informed decisions during elections.

Highlight of the report 

  • According to the report, the scenario during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections mirrored the current situation. Out of a total of 7,928 candidates in the fray, a staggering 1,500 candidates, constituting 19%, had criminal cases registered against them. Among these, 1,070 candidates, amounting to 13%, faced serious criminal charges.
  • However, what stood out was the outcome: despite the significant percentage of candidates with clean records, a substantial 44% of the elected members to the 17th Lok Sabha, spanning the period from 2019 to 2024, had criminal cases against them. 
  • This stark revelation underscores the trend where candidates with criminal backgrounds tend to secure more seats than those without such records, further emphasizing the need for greater transparency and awareness among voters regarding the criminal antecedents of their elected representatives.

 

Reasons for criminalisation of politics 

  • Social Factors: Socio-economic inequalities, lack of access to justice, and widespread corruption can all contribute to the normalization of criminality in politics. In some cases, individuals may enter politics as a means of seeking power and influence in the absence of legitimate opportunities for social mobility.
  • Lack of Internal Democracy within Political Parties: Many political parties in India lack internal democracy, with decisions often being centralized within a small group of leaders. This can create an environment where individuals with criminal backgrounds can thrive, as they may have the resources or connections to gain favor with party leaders.
  • Dynastic Politics: India has a long history of dynastic politics, where political power and influence are passed down within families. In such a system, individuals with criminal backgrounds who belong to influential families may find it easier to enter politics and secure nominations from their parties.
  • Money and Muscle Power: Elections in India often involve significant spending on campaigning and mobilizing support. Individuals with criminal backgrounds may have amassed wealth and influence through illegal means, which they can then use to fund their electoral campaigns and garner support through coercion or intimidation.
  • Weak Legal Enforcement: Despite laws and regulations aimed at preventing individuals with criminal backgrounds from contesting elections, enforcement mechanisms can be weak or ineffective. Loopholes in the legal system, delays in the judicial process, and lack of coordination between law enforcement agencies can all contribute to the impunity enjoyed by politicians with criminal records.
  • Vote-bank Politics: Some political parties may see candidates with criminal backgrounds as advantageous for securing votes from certain communities or regions. These candidates may have a reputation for being able to deliver on promises or provide protection to their supporters, leading parties to field them in elections despite their criminal histories.

 

Supreme court judgments 

  1. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): In this case, the Supreme Court ruled that lawmakers would be immediately disqualified if they were convicted of a crime and sentenced to a jail term of two years or more. This judgment aimed to prevent individuals with serious criminal records from holding public office.
  2. Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002): This case led to the introduction of disclosure requirements for candidates contesting elections. The Supreme Court mandated that candidates must disclose criminal cases pending against them, their educational qualifications, financial assets, and liabilities while filing nomination papers.
  3. Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2019): In this case, the Supreme Court directed political parties to publish details of criminal cases against their candidates on their websites and social media platforms. The court emphasized the importance of transparency and accountability in electoral politics.
  4. Ramesh Dalal v. Union of India (2005): The Supreme Court held that voters have a right to know about the criminal antecedents of candidates contesting elections. The court observed that this information is essential for voters to make informed choices and exercise their democratic rights effectively.
  5. PUCL v. Union of India (2003): In this case, the Supreme Court issued guidelines for electoral reforms, including measures to curb the criminalization of politics. The court recommended the establishment of fast-track courts to expedite the trial of cases involving elected representatives and to ensure their timely disposal.

 

What is Representation of People Act, 1951

The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA, 1951) is a key legislation in India that governs various aspects of elections, including the conduct of elections, qualifications and disqualifications of candidates, and the registration of political parties. The RPA, 1951, was enacted to ensure free and fair elections in the country and to establish democratic norms and procedures.

Key provisions of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, include:

  1. Qualifications and Disqualifications of Candidates: The Act lays down the qualifications that a person must possess to contest elections to the Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies. It also specifies various grounds for disqualification, including conviction for certain offenses, bankruptcy, and holding an office of profit under the government.
  2. Conduct of Elections: The RPA, 1951, provides detailed provisions regarding the conduct of elections, including the process of nomination, the appointment of election officers, polling procedures, and counting of votes. It also regulates the use of election symbols by political parties and candidates.
  3. Election Petitions: The Act provides for the filing of election petitions challenging the validity of an election on various grounds, such as corrupt practices, illegalities in the conduct of elections, or violations of election laws. These petitions are adjudicated by the High Courts or the Supreme Court, depending on the level of the election.
  4. Registration of Political Parties: The RPA, 1951, prescribes the procedure for the registration and recognition of political parties. Political parties seeking recognition must fulfill certain eligibility criteria, including having a certain minimum number of members and following internal democratic processes.
  5. Electoral Offenses and Penalties: The Act defines various electoral offenses, such as bribery, undue influence, and impersonation, and prescribes penalties for individuals found guilty of such offenses. These offenses are punishable by imprisonment, fines, or both.

 

Provision for disqualification under RPA, 1951

  • Conviction for Certain Offenses: A person convicted of certain offenses by a court of law is disqualified from contesting elections. These offenses include crimes such as bribery, electoral malpractices, corruption, and offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) or any other special laws.
  • Corrupt Practices: Any individual found guilty of engaging in corrupt practices during elections, such as bribery, undue influence, or impersonation, is disqualified from contesting elections.
  • Undischarged Insolvency: A person who is declared as an undischarged insolvent by a court is disqualified from contesting elections until the insolvency is discharged.
  • Office of Profit: Holding an office of profit under the government, whether Central or State, can lead to disqualification from contesting elections. However, certain offices are exempted from this disqualification by law or by the President of India.
  • Unsoundness of Mind: Individuals who have been declared to be of unsound mind by a competent court and are under guardianship are disqualified from contesting elections.
  • Dual Membership of Legislative Bodies: A person cannot simultaneously be a member of both Houses of Parliament or both Houses of a State Legislature. If a person is elected to more than one such legislative body, they must resign from one within a certain period, failing which they will be disqualified.
  • Government Contracts and Tenders: Holding government contracts or being involved in government tenders can lead to disqualification from contesting elections, as it may create a conflict of interest.

 

Download plutus ias current affairs eng med 23rd April 2024

 

Tags:
No Comments

Post A Comment