Why in News?

The Supreme Court (SC) has agreed to hear a plea from the Election Commission of India (ECI) to direct political parties to not field candidates with criminal antecedents.

Why the SC is hearing the plea?

• The immediate provocation is the finding that 46% of MPs (Members of Parliament) have criminal records.
• While the number might be inflated as many politicians tend to be charged with relatively minor offences.
• The current cohort of Lok Sabha MPs has the highest (29%) proportion of those with serious declared criminal cases compared to its recent predecessors.

What are some unhealthy tendencies?

• Such candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image.
• This is largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties.
• Some voters tend to view such candidates of being able to represent their interests by hook or by crook.
• Others do not seek to punish these candidates in instances where they are in contest with other candidates with similar records.
• Either way, these unhealthy tendencies in the democratic system reflect a poor image of the nature of India’s state institutions and the quality of its elected representatives.

What are the previous SC judgments?

• The SC has come up with a series of landmark judgments on addressing this issue.
• In 2013, it removed the statutory protection of convicted legislators from immediate disqualification.
• In 2014, it directed the completion of trials involving elected representatives within a year.
• In 2017, it asked the Centre to frame a scheme to appoint special courts to exclusively try cases against politicians and for political parties to publicise pending criminal cases faced by their candidates in 2018.
• But these have not been a deterrent to legislators with doubtful credentials.
• Solution - A rule that disallows candidates against whom charges have been framed in court for serious offences may be a solution.
• This is something for Parliament to consider as an amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Why this solution is unrealizable?

• This denouement is still an unrealizable dream given the composition of the Lower House with a number of representatives facing serious cases.
• Ultimately, this is a consequence of a structural problem in Indian democracy and the nature of the Indian state.
• Formally, the institutions of the state are present and subject to the electoral will of the people.
• Substantively, they are still relatively weak and careless in governance and delivery of public goods.
• This has allowed cynical voters to elect candidates despite their dubious credentials and for their ability to work on a patronage system.

What could be done?

• The judicial pronouncements on making it difficult for criminal candidates to contest are necessary.
• But only enhanced awareness and increased democratic participation could create the right conditions for the decriminalisation of politics.