Context: A February 2020 Supreme Court judgement on Criminalisation in politics may have far-reaching consequences for Indian democracy. It will first be implemented in the coming Bihar elections in October 2020.
Background

• Judgement: The Court has asked the political parties to state the reasons for selection of candidates with criminal background and why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates.
• If a political party fails to comply then it would be treated as contempt of Court’s orders/directions.
• It will first be implemented in the coming Bihar elections in October 2020.

Earlier orders for reducing criminalization in politics

• Each candidate shall submit a sworn affidavit giving financial details and criminal cases.
• Each candidate shall inform the political party in writing of criminal cases against him or her.
• The party shall put up on its website and on social media as well as publish in newspapers the names and details of such candidates.

Why did the Court pass such an order?

• There is increasing number of MPs with criminal cases pending against them.

Need of criminal free politics

• Governance free of the criminals: As politics dominates the bureaucracy and reins in business, civil society and the media.
• Better intention: Capability is not sufficient and there is a requirement of intent to do public service.
• No single party problem: It is not about any party but about the political system as one of them is going to run the government.
• Better result: The criminalization in politics result in bad governance and survey after survey show that people around the country are unhappy with the quality of governance.
• Better choices: As there are limited choices, voters try to vote as best of their ability. They need better alternatives.
• Other wrongs: Using money power to buy MLAs and MPs sometimes makes a mockery of election outcomes which is expected to be followed by criminals.

Reasons for criminalization despite several laws and court judgements

• Lack of enforcement of laws and judgments.
• There are no tough penalties on them if they don’t follow the orders.

Need of more vigilance

• Better monitoring: Monitoring the affidavits of candidates
• Working with the Election Commission to ensure that information is promptly available on their websites and widely circulating this information to voters using all the social media tools available.
• Better compliance: It includes monitoring compliance with the Supreme Court judgment to see if details of tainted candidates are promptly put up on their websites and on their social media handles along with proper reasons for giving them tickets.
• Not just winnability of candidates: Voters need to be vigilant about misuse of money, gifts and other inducements during elections. We need to realize that people who bribe us for votes cannot be trusted.
• More public pressure: There is a need for ensuring prosecution with public pressure. For example-some positive may come up if one political leader is hauled up for giving tickets to large numbers of tainted candidates.

Suggestion

• Political parties should themselves refuse tickets to the tainted.
• The RP Act should be amended to debar persons against whom cases of a heinous nature are pending from contesting elections.
• Fast-track courtsshould decide the cases of tainted legislators quickly.
• Bring greater transparency in campaign financing.
• The Election Commission of India (ECI) should have the power to audit the financial accounts of political parties.

Road Ahead

• Need initiatives from political parties: All the Supreme Court judgments on electoral reforms since 2002 are in fact responses to citizen initiatives and not one initiative has come from the political system.
• Mahatma Gandhi taught us that to solve a problem, we have to confront the real issue. A root cause diagnosis shows that political party leaders are squarely responsible for this state of affairs as they field such candidates.