TS Sneha
Abstract
“Criminalization of Politics” refers to those acts carried out by persons with Legislative, Judicial or Executive Authority, (as opposed to the belief that it is limited to political authority) which undermine the constitutional fundamentals of India. Today, innumerable criminals are involved in crimes, and it is necessary that the Election Commission with the help of Parliament come up with a system in place to ensure that there is less play of crime in politics. In addition to this, the Judiciary must also ensure that the cases pending before them concerning criminals in politics must be adjudicated upon. We will look at the previous Supreme Court judgements and look at how it shaped the present electoral system of India.
Criminalization of Politics in India
The criminalisation of Politics, in essence, implies criminals contesting in elections and getting elected to Parliament. The primary reason why this occurs is because of the connection between the criminals, the criminals who would want to carry on their criminal activities and the politicians who would want to increase their influence on the people. This, although not perceivable on first sight is an invasive threat to the country in the long-run as the moral principles on which the country was built gets burnt to ashes. India, although proclaims to be the largest democracy, has only had an increasing number of criminals contesting elections over the years according to reports published by the Association of Democratic Reforms(ADR).
It is disheartening that Indian laws do not restrict the participation of people who have pending criminal cases against them in elections, and this indirectly aids in the increased chances of them winning. A vigilant resident of India is expected to go into the criminal precedents and records of a candidate they wish to vote for, but most of the unaware citizens end up voting for criminals, who might have cases pending against them and this in a way helps the elected representative to evade the eyes of law and his influence finally leads to the dropping of the case. It is the very need of the hour for the Judiciary to intervene and save the Basic Structure of the Constitution from drowning by bringing in laws to make sure that criminals do not get to exert their influence on the politics of the country. The Supreme Court and Election Commission of India(ECI)[1] has taken some measures to restore humanity’s faith in the political system of the country like the implementation of the model code of conduct and establishing Expense Monitoring Cell, in addition to the compulsion of submission of complete criminal records. In Supreme Court’s verdicts, various reforms have been brought about to minimise criminalisation of politics in India. As per the 2004 judgment of the Patna High CourtinJan Chaukidari v Union of India[2] — upheld by the Supreme Court on 10 July2013— all those in lawful police or judicial custody, other than those held in preventive detention, will forfeit their right to stand for election.In Lily Thomas v. the Union of India[3], the Supreme Court declared Section 8 (4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, (RPA) which allowed legislators a three-month window to appeal against their conviction — effectively delaying their disqualification until such appeals were exhausted — as unconstitutional. India, finally with these two judgements, realised that convicts should not be given a chance to contest elections, at least for a stipulated period. In further decisions of the Supreme Court, None of the Above(NOTA) was recognised and VVPAT (Voter Verifiable Paper Audit Trial)[4] was declared indispensable for free and fair elections.[5]On a petition filed by an advocate S SubramaniamBalaji, challenging the state’s decision to distribute freebies, the Supreme Court directed the Election Commission to frame guidelines for regulating contents of declarations.It is undeniable that India has made some progress over the years concerning legislation, but they aren’t implemented rightly; hence the number of criminals contesting elections and winning seats to the Parliaments and State Legislatures have increased over time. The Parliament and the Supreme Court have collectively shifted the burden to the ECI to legislate on matters relating to Article 101(1).[6] A Constitution is only as good as the people who follow it, and stricter regulations are necessary concerningRepresentative of the People Act, 1951.[7]A five-judge Constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DipakMisra said malignancy of criminalisation of politics was “not incurable”, but the issue was required to be dealt with soon before it becomes “fatal” to the democracy in the latest judgement regarding the “cure of malignancy” of criminalisation of politics.
Despite the challenges before the country, India took inspiration from the US and the Independent Regulatory Commission[8] came about, and it is an essential weapon at the hands of the administration to control the economic and other activities of the various service providers. Broader legislation, breaking the nexus between politicians and criminals and transparency in election manifestations are some measures that need to be brought about to avoid criminalisation of politics in India. Apart from that, fast-track courts must decide the case of tainted legislators immediately.
BIBLIOGRAPHY https://www.civilsdaily.com/electoral-reform-decisions-by-supreme-court/
[1]The Election Commission of India is an autonomous constitutional authority responsible for administering election processes in India at national, state and district level. … The Election Commission operates under the authority of Constitution per Article 324, and subsequently enacted Representation of the People Act.
[2]Jan Chaukidar (Peoples Watch) … vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors., 2004 (3) JCR 284 Pat
[3]Lily Thomas v. the Union of India,2000 (1) ALT Cri 363
[4]A VVPAT is intended as an independent verification system for voting machines designed to allow voters to verify that their vote was cast correctly, to detect possible election fraud or malfunction, and to provide a means to audit the stored electronic results.
[5]Subramanian Swamyvs Election Commission of India (ECI),1996 AIR 1810
In accordance to that, the Supreme Court has directed the ECI to equip Electronic Voting Machines (EVMs) with VVPAT systems to “ensure accuracy of the VVPAT system”. The Court directed the government to provide the key financial assistance to the ECI to cause VVPAT systems to be deployed along with EVMs.
[6]101. Vacation of seats
(1) No person shall be a member of both Houses of Parliament and provision shall be made by Parliament by law for the vacation by a person who is chosen a member of both Houses of his seat in one House or the other.
[7]An Act to provide for the conduct of elections of the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State, the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of those Houses, the corrupt 1* * * practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections.
[8]The Independent Regulatory Commissions are characteristic American institutions to undertake public regulation of private economic activity. They are much different from Indian Commissions who are not independent to the same extent. The American Independent Regulatory Commissions are totally independent of the Presidential Control. They are a manifestation of the distrust the US Congress harbours towards the political executive. The Congress, therefore, creates special bodies to regulate and control the private economic activity whenever it feels necessary to do so.
Lawcutor 