Criminalisation of politics

criminals are entering the election fray and contesting elections and even getting elected to the Parliament and state legislature. Post 2019 elections, 43% of Lok Sabha members face criminal charges with 29% of them are facing serious criminal charges such as murder, rape and kidnapping, while 84% have self-declared assets worth more than Rs. 1 crore.

Reasons for Criminalization

• nexus between the criminals and politicians
• use of money and muscle power in elections
• delays in criminal justice system
• lack of value-based politics
• tolerance to criminal candidates
• First Past the Post (FPTP) electoral system doesn’t discourage criminals from contesting elections etc.

Impacts

• law-breakers get elected as law-makers
• legislatures lose their credibility and legitimacy
• increased circulation of unaccounted money or black money during and after election
• dilution in the probity in public life
• increased levels of corruption
• introduces a culture of violence in the society and sets a bad precedence for the youth to follow.

Election Commission revised the timeline for publicity of criminal antecedents by candidates concerned and by the political parties that nominate them for elections. 

• candidates as well as the political parties will publish the details of criminal antecedents, if any, in newspapers and television three times.
• Uncontested winner candidates as well as the political parties who nominate them shall also publicize the criminal antecedents, if any.
• This will help the voters in exercising their choices in more informed manner.

steps taken by Election Commission (EC)

• 1997, EC directed all the Returning Officers (ROs) to reject the nomination papers of any candidate who stands convicted on the day of filing the nomination
• system of flying squads has been introduced to seize black money during elections.
• intense voter awareness campaign and campaign using celebrities exhorting voters not to sell their vote
• a candidate to any National or State Assembly elections is required to furnish an affidavit,Form 26 appended to The Conduct of Elections Rules, 1961, containing information regarding their criminal antecedents, if any, their assets, liabilities, and educational qualification. 
• EC amended Form 26 to comply with a Supreme Court order that required candidates to fill up forms provided by the Commission and state details of criminal cases pending against them.

Limitations of EC in tackling Criminalization

• Need of Large-scale infrastructure to monitor and ensure compliance: Supreme Court order made it mandatory for political parties to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases.
• No power to disqualify candidates prior to conviction: Section 8 of the RPA, 1951 deals with disqualification only after a person is convicted for certain offences.
• False affidavits: extremely serious consequences as it affects the purity of elections. Lax punishments have not been able to deter this activity.
• Misuse of religion for electoral gain: can be questioned only by way of an election petition and cannot be a subject of enquiry before the EC when the election is in progress.
• provisions will have application only during the period of election and there is no provision to challenge the corrupt practice of the candidate who lost the election
• law enforcing authorities cannot proceed without a warrant issued by a competent Magistrate to search or arrest any person even on specific information about the corruptive practice. 

Way forward

Election Commission and Law Commission following recommendations

• Amendments to RPA, 1951: 
• Include conviction under section 125A as a ground of disqualification under section 8(1) 
• Introduce enhanced sentence for filing of false affidavits of a minimum of two years under section 125A.
• Include the offence of filing false affidavit as a corrupt practice under section 123.
• Set up an independent method of verification of winners' affidavits to check the incidence of false disclosures in a speedy fashion. 
• Barring persons charged with cognizable offence from contesting in the elections,
• Expediting trials in relevant courts where a case is led against a sitting Members of Legislatures and to conduct the trial on a day-to-day basis with an outer limit of completing the trial in one year.
• Granting EC additional powers to make recommendations to the appropriate authority to- 
• refer any matter for investigation to any agency specified by the Commission
• Prosecute any person who has committed an electoral offence under RPA, 1951
• appoint any special court for the trial of any offence or offences under RPA, 1951