The 2024 Lok Sabha Election, slated to be held in seven phases, will commence on April 19 and conclude on June 1. In any democratic society, the integrity of elected representatives is of paramount importance. They are entrusted with the responsibility of making decisions that shape the nation's future. However, when individuals with criminal backgrounds or pending cases against them are elected to positions of power, it raises questions about the legitimacy and moral integrity of the political system. In India, as in many other countries, the presence of Members of Parliament (MPs) with declared criminal cases has sparked widespread debate and concern.
According to data from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), The trend of MPs with criminal backgrounds seems to be escalating with each election. In 2004, 24% of MPs declared criminal cases, which increased to 30% in 2009, 34% in 2014, and reached 44% in the 2019 Lok Sabha Election. Similarly, the proportion of MPs with serious criminal cases has also seen a steady rise over the years.
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) is an apolitical and non-partisan nonprofit organization in India, dedicated to electoral and political reforms for over 25 years. ADR filed a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) with the Delhi High Court regarding the disclosure of candidates' criminal, financial, and educational backgrounds when contesting elections. Based on this PIL, the Supreme Court made it mandatory for all candidates contesting elections to disclose their criminal, financial, and educational backgrounds before the polls by filing an affidavit.
As per the Association for Democratic Reforms, out of the 543 sitting MPs analyzed in the Lok Sabha of 2019, 236 (44%) MPs had declared criminal cases against themselves. This represents an increase from the 34% of MPs with criminal cases in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, indicating a concerning trend. Furthermore, among the MPs elected in 2019, 161 (30%) had serious criminal cases pending against them, including cases related to rape, murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, and crimes against women. This is a significant increase from the 22% of winners in the 2014 elections who had serious criminal charges against them.
In terms of regional representation, Maharashtra, Delhi, Andra Pradesh, Gujarat, Uttar Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu have notable numbers of sitting MPs with declared criminal cases, as reported by the ADR website. In the 2019 Lok Sabha Election, Maharashtra had 31 sitting MPs who declared criminal cases out of a total of 48 MPs. In Delhi, 5 out of 7 sitting MPs declared criminal cases. Andra Pradesh had 20 sitting MPs out of 42 who declared criminal cases. Gujarat had 9 sitting MPs out of 26 who declared criminal cases. In Uttar Pradesh, 25 sitting MPs out of 80 declared criminal cases. Tamil Nadu had 7 sitting MPs out of 39 who declared criminal cases. This data is available on the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) website.
Candidates with various criminal charges have been fielded by different political parties. For instance, 55 candidates declared cases related to murder, with representation from several parties including BJP, BSP, INC, CPI(M), and others. Additionally, 126 candidates declared cases related to crimes against women, including 9 candidates charged with rape. Similarly, candidates with cases related to robbery, dacoity, kidnapping, and hate speech have also been fielded by various parties.
Senior Advocate Amit Desai stated, "The Representation of People's Act was amended many years ago for disclosure of cases that were pending against MPs and MLAs in their affidavits and forms. The Supreme Court has given directions for setting up special courts to conduct criminal cases of MPs and MLAs to expedite the trials. The courts are monitoring the progress of these trials. It is now the responsibility of the state and the courts to ensure that these proceedings, which are already in the special courts, are expedited and concluded within a timeframe."
"The new court procedure, expected to come into effect on the 1st of July, with the 'Bhartiya Nagairk Suraksha Sanhita', already includes certain periods or timelines for expediting the disposal of cases generally. So, one can hope that under the new law and also under the current existing procedures, efforts will be made to provide speedy justice, which is in the hands of the states and the judiciary. This is always very welcome for the democratic process and according to the rule of law."
Advocate Desai added, "In my opinion, serious, heinous cases should be given priority over other cases because often, other cases relate to the expression of thoughts and freedom of expression. Therefore, I believe it is more important that heinous crimes are given priority. Over the last nearly 30 to 35 years, both the courts and the Parliament have been making efforts to bring about transparency in information about our elected representatives. The problem no longer lies in the need for disclosure, rather, the issue is expediting the processes to determine the innocence or guilt of our elected representatives, and that is where the focus should be."
Praveen Dixit, Former Director General of Police, Maharashtra, expressed, "In criminal cases against persons aspiring to be representatives of people, it is necessary to ensure expeditious completion of these cases. The maximum period should be one year. Stern monitoring by High Courts of progress in these cases is the need of the day. Delay in decision is defeating the purpose of launching these cases. Association of Democratic Reforms needs to come up with a strategy to ensure speedy disposal of criminal cases."
Abhay Deshpande, Political Analyst, stated, "Cases regarding agitations or protests for civic issues like water and electricity can be considered. However, financial cases against public representatives are increasing due to corruption. The Election Commission decided to disclose candidates' criminal backgrounds or cases so that voters can make informed decisions. Unfortunately, voters often prioritize factors like caste and ideology over candidates' education, character, criminal cases, and illegal property. Electoral standards need to be raised to discourage continuously electing candidates with criminal backgrounds."
Deshpande further explained, "Preventing candidates from contesting elections due to pending cases is a double-edged sword, especially with the politicization of central agencies. The ruling party may use such cases as weapons against the opposition. Therefore, candidates cannot be barred from contesting until proven guilty or innocent by the court. Ultimately, it depends on the voters, unless they stop voting for such candidates, they will continue to contest elections."
