Sample Material of Current Public Administration Magazine
Accountability and Control
Cleaning the House
- S Y Quraishi
Criminalisation of politics has been a matter of great concern, particularly
in the last two decades. The Supreme Court’s latest order asks the Election
Commission to clarify its position on the PIL seeking a lifelong ban on
candidates convicted in criminal cases. Just a couple of months ago, the EC had
supported the petitioner. In the hearing on July 18, however, the EC’s advocate
took a different stand.
“[The] Commission has not taken any decision and doubts whether it falls in the
legislature’s domain,” he told the court. Since this stand was inconsistent with
the one taken earlier, the Supreme Court came down heavily on the EC. “Can you
afford to remain silent when it is within the domain of the commission? If you
don’t want to be independent, if you want to be constrained by the legislature,
constrained even to express your views, say so freely,” it said.
Such a rebuke to the commission is unprecedented. The Supreme Court, in fact,
has been extremely supportive of the EC, so much so that I have always described
it as the commission’s guardian angel. When the matter comes up before the court
next, it is expected that the EC will unequivocally reiterate the plea to debar
convicted MPs and MLAs for life from contesting elections. “The Commission has
not taken any U-turn and is unambiguously in sync with the petitioner’s prayer
to debar the convicted legislators (MPs and MLAs) for life,” the commission’s
officials have clarified.
My personal opinion is that the lifelong ban is too harsh. Under the present
law, the minimum bar of a politician from election is eight years (two years of
minimum imprisonment followed by six years of ban). That is enough to kill his
The positive aspect of the unpleasant situation is that the need for
cleansing politics of criminal influence has been flagged once again. The issue
has two dimensions: One, how to deal with the politicians after conviction and,
two, before conviction, while they are still under trial.
Protecting the parliamentary system from criminalisation has been the
intention of the law from the beginning. Section 8 of the Representation of the
People (RP) Act, 1951 disqualifies a person convicted with a sentence of two
years or more from contesting elections. But those under trial continued to be
eligible to contest elections. The Lily Thomas case (2013), however, ended this
The SC has repeatedly expressed concern about the purity of legislatures. In
2002, it made it obligatory for all candidates to file an affidavit before the
returning officer, disclosing criminal cases pending against them. Civil society
organisations like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) analyse and
publish this information. The concern of the apex court has been increasingly
clear from a series of judgments. The famous order to introduce NOTA was
intended to make political parties think before giving tickets to the tainted.
According to the ADR’s analysis of EC data, 187 MPs in the current Lok Sabha
face criminal charges (that is, 34.4 per cent). Of them, 113 face serious
criminal charges. The number has gone up from 162 (76 serious) charges in 2009
and 128 (58 serious) in 2004. This obviously shows the political class and
legislature in a poor light. What is the way out? There are three possible
options. One, political parties should themselves refuse tickets to the tainted.
Two, the RP Act should be amended to debar persons against whom cases of a
heinous nature are pending from contesting elections. Three, fast-track courts
should decide the cases of tainted legislators quickly.
Far from denying tickets to criminals, all political parties seem to have
been in competition to give them more and more tickets. They have been unitedly
opposing the proposal to debar perpetrators of even heinous offences during
pendency of trial on the grounds that false criminal cases may be filed by
opponents. This concern is partly valid. However, the EC’s proposal itself has
three safeguards. First, all criminal cases would not invite the ban — only
heinous offences like murder, dacoity, rape, kidnapping or moral turpitude.
Second, the case should have been registered at least a year before the
elections. Third, the court must have framed the charges.
The opponents of the proposal also argue that the jurisprudence followed in
the country holds that a person is innocent until proven guilty. Then what about
the over 2.7 lakh persons today who are undertrials (and are therefore
“innocent”) and locked up in jails? Their fundamental rights of liberty, freedom
of movement, freedom of occupation and dignity are denied. Does this not violate
the fundamental right of equality? If the rights of an undertrial can be
suspended within the ambit of the law, what is the problem about temporarily
suspending the right to contest an election, which, incidentally, is only a
Another pertinent question is will fast-track courts be illegal as they will
treat the cases against politicians differently from the lakhs of other cases
awaiting a decision for years? No. Fast tracking has been the accepted norm.
Special CBI courts, consumer courts, special courts for economic offences and,
more recently, fast-track courts for rape cases do create special categories for
adjudication, and nobody has dubbed them discriminatory.
The RP Act also recognises the principle of fast-tracking, requiring the high
court to decide on election petitions within six months. The fact that courts
have been taking years to decide on election petitions makes it an issue of
dereliction by the judiciary of its statutory obligation, not a deficiency of
This has been addressed by the landmark judgment of March 2014, in which the SC
accepted the urgent need for cleansing politics of criminalisation and directed
all subordinate courts to decide on cases involving legislators within a year,
or give reasons for not doing so to the chief justice of the high court. The
government of India promptly offered full support for the implementation of this
order. It is important to see how the SC judgement has been implemented on the
With the SC positively inclined and the PM’s concern for a corruption-free
India through electoral reforms, the problem may finally be nearing resolution.
The writer is former chief election commissioner of India, and author of ‘An
Undocumented Wonder — The Making of the Great Indian Election’
(Source- The Indian Express)
Get this magazine (Current Public Administration) free if you purchase our any
of the below courses: