Even though it is widely believed that the Supreme Court should have intervened in tackling the vicious political-criminal nexus, it has assiduously steered clear emphasising it is for the legislature to clean up the ills afflicting electoral politics. It is for the country’s highest legislative body to frame laws. Clearly, the Apex court did not want to whip up a controversy by interfering with the duties and responsibilities of the legislature.
This is particularly so in a democratic system of governance where the work of the Executive, Legislature and the Court are clearly delineated to avoid conflict of interest. At the same time, there have been instances in the past when the court has been compelled to go beyond its calling in directing the administration to take urgent measures in the scientific disposal of garbage coupled with public transport using fuel which is not polluting the atmosphere posing a serious health hazard.
Political parties and politicians of all hues and shapes have raised their voice of ridding politics of criminal elements but done precious little to achieve that goal. The critical aspect is ‘winnability’ of a candidate which makes all the difference at the hustings. Using means fair or foul matters little in electoral politics. The long standing problem of the political-criminal nexus has been discussed for decades in this country with no solution in sight.
However, the political class has lacked the will to deal with this matter firmly and effectively. It was widely hoped the judiciary will show the way in preventing candidates facing criminal charges against them getting elected to Parliament and the the Legislative Assemblies in the states. But that was not to be as the Supreme Court has left it to Parliament to legislate on the subject.
Nevertheless, suggestions were made making some direly required changes in the electoral laws — making it mandatory for candidates to submit an affidavit with full disclosure of criminal cases, if any, and details of their asset and income — were made mandatory by the judiciary. It may be recalled that the most recent change of providing an option to voters to exercise “None of the Above (NOTA)” in case they did not want to vote for any of the candidates contesting an election, was also introduced by the judiciary in 2003 on the basis of the PIL filed by the People’s Union for Civil Liberties.
The court mentioned that it was not within its powers to disqualify politicians facing criminal cases from contesting election, but recommended that Parliament enact a strong law. Further, the court made it mandatory for political parties and candidates themselves to make public disclosure through the print and electronic media.
The Court hoped its judgement contributes to making politics in the country cleaner than before. As evidenced in the past, it might be naive on anybody’s part to expect Parliament to act speedily on this issue. The reasons are not far to fathom as no political party in the country is free from the use of muscle and money power for electoral gains.
In the prevailing atmosphere, banning candidates having a criminal record from contesting elections is bound to harm the interests of political parties themselves. Studies by the Association for Democratic Reforms shows a sizeable 179 of the 543-members of Parliament in the Lok Sabha have criminal cases pending against them. In respect of a hundred MPs, the cases were of a serious nature of alleged crimes against women and kidnappaing. The profile of members of the Rajya Sabha is also disturbing. Not a single tainted MP has shown the courage to come forward to call it quits thereby setting a bad example for others.
What is a matter for concern is the ADR’s estimates of more than 1500 MPs and MLAs in Parliament and the state assemblies having criminal cases pending against them. What is astounding is that police history sheeters have not only contested elections but become members of state assemblies while serving their time in jail. The number of MPs having criminal cases against them in 2004 has increased from 24 per cent in 2004 to 30 per cent in 2009. In the state legislatures, 31 per cent of the MLAs had pending cases while in Uttar Pradesh 47 per cent had criminal cases. The situation is so serious that policy makers cannot afford to turn a blind eye to this problem.
On its part, the Law Commission had recommended that since the stage of framing of charges is based on judicial scrutiny, the concern of criminalisation of politics pertains to disqualification at the time of framing of charges is justified. However, there are substantial legal safeguards to prevent misuse. However, this has not seen the light of the day.
The Election Commission of India, an autonomous body vested with the responsibility of holding free and fair elections, has limited powers to legislate on such laws. In the circumstances, it is only Parliament which must legislate to bring about early changes. Public opinion on this matter is wishy washy as people at large are confused if tainted candidates with criminal records should be allowed to contest elections. The question is will the political class stop dragging its feet and get its act together in barring candidates with criminal records from contesting elections? Or is it asking for too much to keep criminals out of Parliament, the highest legislative body in the country, and the State Legislatures?
T R Ramachandran is a senior journalist and commentator.
