Alibi and Witness: Key Differences

 The function of the judiciary in preventing the criminalization of politics

The criminalization of politics involves criminals entering politics, running for office, and even being elected to the Parliament and state legislature. When discussing election changes, criminalization of politics is at the forefront of the public discourse. A Supreme Court ruling on the criminalization of politics in February 2020 could have far-reaching effects for Indian democracy.

The verdict was rendered in a case of contempt of court brought against the Chief Election Commissioner of India. The petition said that the ECI had failed to take any efforts to ensure the implementation of a 2018 judgment of the bench mandating that political parties declare and publicize all pending criminal charges against their candidates.

Also Read: Supreme Court Judgements 

2004 - 24%, 2009 - 30%, 2014 - 33%, and 2019 - 43% of members of parliament have a criminal history. Approximately fifty percent of the new Lok Sabha have criminal history. This increasing number of members of parliament with criminal backgrounds threatens the future of any genuine democracy.

Meaning of political criminalization:

The criminalisation of Indian politics refers to the increased involvement of criminals and those with criminal convictions. In addition, this word refers to those with criminal histories who become politicians and elected delegates. In addition, according to Section 8 of the Indian Representative of People Act, any anyone incarcerated for more than two years is prohibited from running for office until six years after his release. Due to the prevalent criminalisation of politics in India, however, this clause is ineffective in practice.

Causes of political criminalization:

Effectiveness of Politicians:

Political parties award nominations to candidates based on their viability. In the 2019 Lok Sabha election, a candidate with stated criminal offenses had a 15.5% probability of winning, while a candidate with a clean record had just 4.7%.

Utilization of Money and Strength:

Elections are heavily dependent on the amount of funding they receive. Frequently, candidates with criminal backgrounds have substantial cash reserves that guarantee their election success. According to the ADR website, 43% of the 539 applicants analyzed in 2019 have criminal convictions against them.

Among the 542 MPs assessed during the 2014 Lok Sabha elections, 185 (34 percent) winners had declared criminal cases against themselves, while just 30 percent had done so during the 2009 Lok Sabha elections. Consequently, there is a 44% increase in the number of candidates with declared criminal charges.

Corruption and Bureaucracy:

Corruption and red tape in the bureaucracy and government have created a network involving bureaucrats, lawmakers, police, criminals, and corporations. All of these ultimately help individuals with a criminal past into politics.

Insufficient Rule of Law and Growing Vote Bank Politics:

People have less faith in the police and bureaucracy as a result of a weak legal system.

People's faith in democratic institutions has been eroded by social divisions based on caste, religion, etc., as well as the incapacity of authorities to respond swiftly to social tensions.

This provides a breeding ground for strongmen to establish popularity and control over their own community's inhabitants.

Insufficient intra-party democracy:

In India, intra-party democracy is lacking, and the top leadership decides which candidates will run in elections. Thus, politicians with criminal past can avoid the scrutiny of the party's grassroots workers and organization.

Low Rate of Conviction:

In India, the conviction rate for MPs and MLAs with criminal histories has been extremely low. Low conviction rates and trial delays do not stop the political party from giving tickets to candidates with a criminal past.

Ineffective Election Commission:

The candidates filing nomination papers are required to provide the electoral commission with information regarding their assets, pending court cases, and educational background, as well as their election expenditures.

However, candidates frequently provide inaccurate information, and the Election Commission is powerless to take action against them.

Consequences of the criminalisation of politics:

Negative Effects on Democracy's Quality:

The presence of legislators with a criminal past diminishes the legislative capacity of Parliament and state legislatures. It has a detrimental impact on the quality of democracy and resembles a ding in the fabric of democracy.

Obstruction of the Administration of Justice:

The criminalization of politics impedes the administration of justice and causes trial delays. After obtaining a position of authority, criminals abuse it to commit or get away with crimes and offenses.

Boosts Corruption:

The criminalization of politics encourages corruption in public life and establishes a connection between criminals, politicians, and bureaucracy. All of these have detrimental effects on state institutions, including the legislative, executive, and judiciary.

Violence in Culture:

It creates a violent culture in society. For instance, the amount of political violence in West Bengal has set a negative precedent for the state's youth.

Flow of Illegal Funds into the Electoral Process:

The criminalization of politics facilitates the infiltration of illegal funds into the election process and has a negative effect on the security of the people and the nation.

The function of the judiciary in preventing the criminalization of politics:

Occasionally, the Honorable Supreme Court has taken measures to combat India's growing criminalization of politics. Regarding this, numerous judgements, opinions, and decisions have been presented. However, nothing remarkable has transpired. The Supreme Court stated accurately in its ruling, and the majority of us would unquestionably concur "No one can deny that the threat of criminality within the Indian democratic system is steadily expanding. No one can argue that, in order to preserve the integrity of the political system, criminals and those implicated in the criminality of the political system should not be authorized to serve as legislators."

In August of 2021, the bench of Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman and B.R. Gavai of the Honorable Supreme Court voiced their concern regarding the criminalization of politics. The Honorable Court made the following observation:

"Political parties hesitate to rouse themselves from a deep slumber. Obviously, one of the legislative branch's most pressing problems is not the purification of the contaminated political stream."

In its contempt petition filed in February 2020, the Supreme Court ordered political parties to comply with its judgment in Public Interest Foundation and Others v. Union of India and Others (2018). However, the various political parties did not comply with the decision's directives. The court found the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), the Janata Dal (United), the Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), and the Congress guilty of contempt for failing to comply with the directions of the Honorable Supreme Court.

It imposed a fine of 1 lakh for candidates in the 2020 Bihar election who failed to disclose the exact facts of their criminal past. In addition, the Communist Party of India and the National Congress Party were each had to deposit five lakhs because they did not comply with the Supreme Court's directions in any way.

Advocate Brajesh Singh filed the present contempt petition in August 2021, alleging that the major political parties disobeyed court orders during the 2020 Bihar assembly elections. After considering the contentions and arguments presented, the bench remarked that the majority of political parties have either not provided complete disclosure or have not produced material in the proper format.

In its most recent verdict in 2020, the court issued the following directives and amendments:

ECI has been instructed to develop a mobile application including all information regarding the criminal histories of applicants, so that the general public has quick access to this data.

The court has ordered ECI to establish a separate monitoring cell to determine whether or not the parties are complying with the court's order. It has also instructed them to bring such violations to the attention of the court.

The Supreme Court ordered political parties to add a 'candidates with criminal antecedents' option to their websites' homepages to make it easier for voters to obtain additional information. The court has modified its previous ruling from February 2020, instructing parties to publish information within 48 hours of selection rather than two weeks before nomination. It was also noted that a special Supreme Court bench could be created to oversee cases involving accused MPs and MLAs.

In addition, the topic was addressed primarily because of two distinct instances of criminality in Indian politics.

The Supreme Court ruled that state administrations may not drop cases against politicians without the authorization of the relevant state high courts.

Parties punished: Nine parties were found guilty of contempt in the Bihar 2020 elections for failing to disclose comprehensive information. In addition, eight of them were hit with hefty fines.