CRIMINALIZATION OF POLITICS

The criminalization of politics in India, as highlighted by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) reports and Supreme Court interventions, reflects a systemic challenge to democratic integrity.

Key Statistics (Based on ADR Reports)

1. Criminal Charges Against MPs:
   • 44% of sitting Members of Parliament (MPs) face criminal charges.
   • 29% of these MPs face serious criminal charges, including murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, and crimes against women.
   • Geographic Concentration: 50% of MPs with criminal charges are from six states—Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, and Himachal Pradesh.
2. Wealth Disparity:
   • 5% of sitting MPs are billionaires, raising concerns about the nexus between money, power, and criminality in elections.

What is Criminalization of Politics?

• Definition: The infiltration of individuals with criminal backgrounds or pending charges into political systems, enabling them to exploit power for personal gain, undermine governance, and evade accountability.
• Implications: Erodes public trust, weakens institutions, and perpetuates corruption, violence, and inequality.

Supreme Court Judgments to Curb Criminalization

1. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013):
   • Ruling: MPs/MLAs convicted of offenses with a minimum sentence of 2 years imprisonment are automatically disqualified from holding office.
   • Impact: Overturned a loophole that allowed convicted lawmakers to retain seats if they filed an appeal within 3 months.
2. Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018):
   • Ruling: Mere framing of criminal charges by a court does not disqualify a candidate from contesting elections or holding office.
   • Rationale: The Court emphasized that disqualification at the charge stage could be misused for political vendettas.
   • Criticism: Allowed candidates with serious pending charges to contest, as conviction rates in India remain low (only 6.5% in 2019).

Why Does the Problem Persist?

1. Legal Loopholes:
   • The 2018 judgment permits candidates with pending charges to contest elections, as disqualification requires conviction, not just charges.
   • Slow judicial processes result in cases lingering for decades, enabling politicians to remain in power.
2. Political Patronage:
   • Parties often field candidates with criminal backgrounds for their “winnability” (ability to mobilize votes through money or muscle power).
   • Voters, in some regions, perceive such candidates as effective “protectors” of community interests.
3. Lack of Legislative Action:
   • The SC in the 2018 verdict urged Parliament to enact laws to disqualify candidates facing serious charges, but no such law exists yet.

Recommendations & Reforms Proposed

1. Fast-Track Courts: Expedite trials of politicians to ensure timely convictions.
2. Disqualification at Charge Stage: Bar candidates from contesting if charged with offenses punishable by 5+ years imprisonment (proposed by Election Commission).
3. Transparency: Mandate parties to publicly disclose reasons for selecting candidates with criminal records.
4. Asset Monitoring: Stricter scrutiny of sudden wealth accumulation by politicians.

Conclusion

While the Supreme Court has attempted to curb criminalization through judicial activism (e.g., Lily Thomas case), systemic inertia, legal gaps, and political complicity perpetuate the issue. The ADR data underscores the urgent need for legislative reforms, ethical political financing, and voter awareness to restore accountability in India’s democracy.