Criminalization Of Politics In India
What is Criminalization of Politics?
The criminalization of politics refers to the increasing participation of individuals with criminal backgrounds in electoral politics, holding public office, and influencing policy decisions. This phenomenon undermines democracy, weakens governance, and affects the rule of law.
Why Does Criminalization Occur?
Muscle and money power to win elections.
Political parties fielding candidates with criminal cases.
Weak enforcement of electoral laws.
Delay in trials leading to prolonged cases.
Voters sometimes prefer candidates with strong influence or 'local muscle'.
Legal and Constitutional Framework Addressing Criminalization
Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA):
Section 8 disqualifies candidates convicted of certain offences.
Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) regulate criminal offences and trials.
Supreme Court judgments expanding and interpreting these laws.
📚 IMPORTANT CASES ON CRIMINALIZATION OF POLITICS
1. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
(Supreme Court of India)
Facts:
Public interest litigation filed to ensure transparency in candidates’ criminal records.
Issues:
Whether candidates must disclose criminal antecedents during elections.
Judgment:
Court ruled that candidates must disclose criminal, financial, and educational background in affidavits.
Directed Election Commission to publish this information for voters.
Significance:
Enhanced voter awareness.
Introduced transparency in electoral politics.
2. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)
Facts:
Challenge to Section 8(4) of the RPA which allowed convicted candidates to continue in office if they filed appeals within three months.
Issues:
Whether convicted candidates can continue holding office during appeal.
Judgment:
Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) as unconstitutional.
Held that convicted candidates should be disqualified immediately.
Directed immediate disqualification without waiting for appeals.
Significance:
Landmark judgment to curb criminalization.
Disqualified several convicted politicians.
3. Public Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) v. Union of India (2003)
Facts:
Petition seeking bar on convicted persons from contesting elections.
Issues:
Whether convicted politicians should be disqualified immediately.
Judgment:
Court laid down detailed guidelines for disqualification.
Emphasized need for speedy trials and electoral reforms.
Significance:
Strengthened legal framework against criminalization.
Prompted Election Commission reforms.
4. Rajbala v. State of Haryana (2016)
Facts:
Constitutionality of minimum educational qualification for candidates in Panchayat elections.
Issues:
Whether educational criteria violate fundamental rights and democratic rights.
Judgment:
Court upheld educational qualification.
Balanced rights with need for clean governance.
Relevance to Criminalization:
Shows judiciary’s willingness to impose eligibility criteria to curb criminal elements.
5. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)
Facts:
PIL seeking ban on candidates with criminal charges from contesting elections.
Issues:
Whether persons with serious criminal charges can be barred from elections.
Judgment:
Supreme Court refused a blanket ban but emphasized need for disclosure and speedy trials.
Recommended reforms to prevent misuse of criminal cases.
Significance:
Highlights judicial caution balancing rights and presumption of innocence.
Calls for legislative action.
🔍 ANALYSIS
| Aspect | Current Legal Scenario and Challenges |
|---|---|
| Disclosure of criminal records | Mandatory, but voters often overlook details. |
| Disqualification | Effective post-conviction; pre-conviction bar not implemented. |
| Political Parties’ Role | Often field candidates with criminal cases. |
| Delay in trials | Allows accused to contest elections for years. |
| Judicial Role | Active in setting reforms but constrained by law. |
🧾 CONCLUSION
While Indian law provides mechanisms to curb criminalization, the problem persists due to political dynamics, delayed justice, and voter behavior. Judicial interventions have brought greater transparency and stricter disqualification rules post-conviction, but pre-conviction disqualification remains a challenge.
Key reforms needed:
Faster judicial processes for politicians’ cases.
Stricter norms for party candidates.
Voter education to discourage voting for criminal candidates.
RELATED Blog
0 comments