Answer

Criminalisation of politics refers to the increasing participation of individuals with criminal backgrounds in electoral politics. As per the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) 2024 report, 40% of MPs in the 17th Lok Sabha faced criminal cases, a rise from 34% in 2014. Despite judicial directives like the Supreme Court’s 2020 order mandating political parties to justify candidate selection, the issue persists.

Judicial Interventions and Legislative Measures

Judicial Interventions

• Disclosure of Criminal Records: The Supreme Court mandated that political parties and candidates publish criminal records in newspapers, electronic media, and party websites at least thrice before elections.
  For example: The 2018 SC ruling required parties to provide reasons for selecting candidates with criminal backgrounds.
• Setting Up Special Courts: The SC directed the creation of special fast-track courts for the expeditious trial of cases against politicians to prevent undue delays in justice.
  For example: 11 states set up 12 special courts to hear cases against MPs and MLAs, but progress has been slow.
• Affidavit-Based Accountability: SC ruled that filing false affidavits about criminal records should be a punishable offense to ensure transparency in electoral processes.
  For example: The 2002 Union of India v. ADR case led to the mandatory disclosure of assets, liabilities, and criminal records by candidates.

Legislative Measures

• Disqualification upon Conviction: Under the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, convicted politicians face disqualification from contesting elections for six years after completing their sentence.
  For example: In Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), SC ruled that legislators convicted of serious offenses will be immediately disqualified.
• Election Commission Reforms: The Election Commission of India (ECI) has consistently recommended barring candidates charged with heinous crimes from contesting elections.
  For example: The ECI’s 2016 proposal suggested amending the RPA to prevent candidates facing serious charges from contesting elections.
• Law Commission Recommendations: The 20th Law Commission recommended disqualification at the charge-framing stage, along with stricter penalties for false affidavits.
  For example: The 244th Law Commission Report (2014) called for day-to-day trials to ensure speedy justice against tainted candidates.

Underlying Causes for the Persistence of Criminalisation of Politics

• Money and Muscle Power: Candidates with criminal backgrounds often have financial and coercive resources, making them attractive to political parties focused on electoral success.
  For example: ADR reports indicate that candidates with higher assets and criminal cases have a higher chance of winning elections.
• Slow Judicial Process: Cases against politicians remain pending for years, allowing them to contest multiple elections despite serious allegations.
  For example: Odisha (323/454 cases) and Maharashtra (169/482 cases) have the highest backlog of cases against MPs/MLAs.
• Weak Political Will: Political parties prioritize winnability over ethics, repeatedly fielding candidates with criminal records due to their local influence.
  For example: 30-35% of party tickets are given to candidates with criminal cases across major parties, as per ADR data.
• Lack of Voter Awareness: Voters often choose candidates based on caste, religion, and populist promises, overlooking criminal records due to short-term electoral incentives.
  For example: Despite criminal charges, candidates like RJD’s Mohammad Shahabuddin and BJP’s Pragya Singh Thakur won elections due to strong voter support.
• Election Funding and Corruption: Criminal politicians use their positions for financial gain, making politics a lucrative career option rather than a service to democracy.
  For example: Candidates invest heavily in elections and recover costs through corruption and patronage networks once elected.

Effective Strategies to Mitigate Criminalisation of Politics

• Disqualification at Charge-Framing Stage: Amendment must be made in  the RPA, 1951, to bar candidates charged with heinous crimes from contesting elections, ensuring cleaner politics.
  For example: The 244th Law Commission Report (2014) recommended disqualification upon charge-framing for serious offenses.
• Speedy Trials for Political Cases: Implement day-to-day hearings and ensure case resolution within one year to prevent delay tactics by politicians.
  For example: SC-mandated fast-track courts have been ineffective due to judicial vacancies and lack of resources.
• State Funding of Elections: Introduce state-sponsored election financing to reduce dependence on criminal funding and illicit donations.
  For example: Several European nations have state-funded elections, reducing the influence of black money in politics.
• Voter Awareness and Civil Society Engagement: Strengthen NGOs, media, and civil society campaigns to educate voters about clean candidates and electoral responsibility.
  For example: ADR’s MyNeta.info website provides criminal and financial records of candidates to empower informed voting.
• Political Party Accountability: Enforce internal party reforms making it mandatory to deny tickets to candidates with serious charges, enhancing ethical leadership.
  For example: Parties could adopt an internal screening committee and publicly justify the selection of tainted candidates in official statements.

Strengthening internal democracy in political parties, fast-tracking cases through special courts, and enforcing stringent electoral reforms like state funding of elections can curb criminalisation. Empowering voter awareness campaigns, increasing judicial accountability, and ensuring strict enforcement of disqualification laws will fortify democratic governance. A collective societal and institutional will is crucial for a politics of integrity over impunity.