(POLITY)
• According to a recent Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) report, nearly half of the ministers across the country have criminal cases registered against them.
• According to the report, out of a total of 643 ministers in 27 state assemblies, three union territories and the Union Council of Ministers, 302 (47%) have declared criminal cases in their election affidavits. Of these, 174 ministers have serious charges like murder, kidnapping and crimes against women registered against them.
• The central government has introduced a bill in Parliament to remove from office a sitting minister, chief minister or prime minister who has been accused of serious crimes and sentenced to 30 days in jail. These bills have been sent to the Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC).
Party-wise position
• Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP): Total 336 ministers, of which 136 (40%) have declared criminal cases and 88 (26%) have serious charges against them.
• Telugu Desam Party (TDP): 22 (96%) of 23 ministers face criminal cases, of which 13 (57%) face serious charges.
• Congress: 45 (74%) of 61 ministers face criminal cases and 18 (30%) face serious charges.
• Aam Aadmi Party (AAP): 11 (69%) of 16 ministers face criminal cases and five (31%) face serious charges.
• Trinamool Congress (TMC): 13 (33%) of 40 ministers face criminal cases and eight (20%) face serious charges.
• Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK): 27 (87%) of 31 ministers face criminal cases and 14 (45%) face serious charges.
Assets Disclosure
• Ministers of India have declared combined assets worth ₹23,929 crore, i.e. average assets of each minister is ₹37.21 crore. Six (8%) of the 72 ministers in the Union Council of Ministers are billionaires.
• Ministers with highest assets:
- TDP MP Chandrasekhar Pemmasani – ₹5,705 crore
- DK Shivakumar (Karnataka Congress) – ₹1,413 crore
- N. Chandrababu Naidu (Andhra Pradesh CM) – ₹931 crore
• Ministers with lowest assets:
- Sukla Charan Notia of Tripura – ₹2 lakh
- Birbaha Hansda of West Bengal – a little over ₹3 lakh
• According to state-wise analysis, Karnataka has eight ministers declaring assets worth more than ₹100 crore, followed by six from Andhra Pradesh and four from Maharashtra.
Reasons for criminalisation of politics
• Poverty, illiteracy and unemployment
• Lack of a sense of nationalism
• Politicians and political parties not believing in the sanctity of means
• Unethical nexus between police, politicians, bureaucrats and criminals
• Influence of external elements on electoral politics
• Acceptance of politicians with criminal tendencies by the public
• Lack of effective implementation of laws
• Fundamental flaws in the judicial system
• Party politics and excessive political greed for power.
• Flaws in the electoral system
• Huge decline in the capacity and quality of governance
• Dominance and acceptance of criminal elements in the society
Various committees formed on criminalization of politics
• Santhanam Committee Report, 1963
- The committee made it clear that political corruption is much more harmful than administrative corruption.
- It recommended the establishment of a vigilance commission at both the central and state levels.
- According to the committee, if corruption is not curbed at the political level, democratic institutions will lose their credibility.
• Vohra Committee Report, 1993
- This committee found that the nexus between criminals, politicians and bureaucrats through criminalization of politics is dangerous for Indian democracy.
- The report expressed concern that criminals escape punishment due to political protection.
- The committee suggested that crime control agencies like CBI, Income Tax Department, Narcotics Department etc. should play an active role in dealing with this problem.
- It is worth mentioning that this report has not been made public in full by the Home Ministry till date.
• Indrajit Gupta Committee, 1998
- The focus of this committee was on electoral corruption. The committee recommended that the election expenses should be borne by the state to reduce corruption and crime in politics.
- Its argument was that if candidates are free from the worry of election expenses, then they will not depend on illegal donations and financial support from criminals.
• Padmanabhaiah Committee on Police Reforms
- This committee found that politicisation and criminalisation of police is closely linked to criminalisation of politics.
- The report observed that criminalisation of politics has led to a culture of impunity. In this culture, a corrupt police officer gets political protection for his actions or inactions, which in turn protects criminals.
Curbing Criminalisation of Politics: Supreme Court Directions
• As per the Supreme Court order, political parties have to make public the details of criminal cases registered against each of their candidates (nature of offence, status of charge sheet, name of the concerned court and case number). This includes:
• It is mandatory to share this information on the party’s official website.
• As per the directions, details of criminal cases of the candidate have to be published in at least one national and one vernacular language newspaper. Additionally, parties have to share the information on their official social media accounts (like Facebook, Twitter/X etc.)
• Information has to be published within 48 hours of selection of candidate or two weeks before the first date of filing nominations (whichever is earlier).
• Political parties must ensure that they submit their compliance report to the Election Commission of India within 72 hours. If this is not done, contempt of court proceedings can be initiated against the party concerned.
• The Supreme Court has also directed that parties must explain:
o Why did they choose a person with a criminal background?
o Candidate should be selected on the basis of his qualifications and achievements, and not just his ability to win the election.
o It must also be explained why no other candidate without a criminal background could be chosen.
• Judicial initiatives
- February 2020 order: The Supreme Court ordered parties to publish the entire criminal history of candidates for Assembly and Lok Sabha elections.
- Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India (2018): The Court had directed political parties to publish the pending criminal cases of their candidates online.
- Union of India vs Association for Democratic Reforms, 2002: The Supreme Court ordered that it would be mandatory for all candidates to disclose their previous and pending criminal cases. The aim is to provide an informed choice to voters.
- Lily Thomas vs Union of India, 2013: In this landmark judgment, the Supreme Court clarified that if a public representative is sentenced to two years or more, he will be immediately disqualified from his membership without waiting for the opportunity of appeal.
• Legislative measures
- Section 8(3) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951: According to this provision, if a public representative is convicted of a minimum sentence of two years, he will be disqualified from contesting elections for six years after his release. This provision is an important effort to prevent the entry of persons with criminal background in politics.