write an essay on criminalisation of politics

Criminalisation of politics: causes, impacts and solutions – Explained, pointwise

ForumIAS announcing GS Foundation Program for UPSC CSE 2025-26 from 26th June. Click Here for more information.

• 1 Introduction
• 2 A little background of the petition 
• 3 What is criminalisation of politics? 
• 4 What are the recent trends? 
• 5 What are the causes of criminalisation of politics in India? 
• 6 What are the impacts of criminalisation of politics in India? 
• 7 What are the initiatives taken so far to overcome the issue of the criminalisation of politics in India? 
• 8 What are some of the landmark judgements on criminalisation of politics in India? 
• 9 What are the various recommendations on de-criminalization of politics? 
• 10 What should be done? 

Introduction

Recently, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) wrote to the Election Commission (ECI), seeking action against political parties that failed to publish details of criminal records of their candidates as per orders of the Supreme Court and the ECI. Activists and independent electoral watchdogs like ADR have been raising concerns over criminalisation of politics for a long time. The increasing trend of criminalisation of politics poses a significant threat to the democratic system.  

A little background of the petition  

In a petition filed by Public Interest Foundation , the Supreme Court in 2018, made it mandatory for political parties to widely publicize the details of criminal cases pending against their candidates.  

Subsequently, in February 2020, while hearing a contempt petition regarding its 2018 order not being implemented, the court repeated that the parties would have to publish the details of candidates with pending criminal cases. It also added that they would have to include the reasons for selecting such a candidate.  

However, an analysis of data by the ADR of Karnataka, Gujarat and Himachal Pradesh elections shows that the number of candidates with criminal antecedents has only increased from previous elections.  

A petition filed by the ADR in 2022 in the Supreme Court sought contempt proceedings against various political leaders for not complying with earlier Supreme Court orders.  

The Supreme Court, earlier in 2023, dismissed the petition and asked ADR to pursue the remedies before the EC. This led ADR to write the letter to ECI.  

What is criminalisation of politics?  

  “Criminalisation of politics” refe rs to the entry of criminals and corrupt individuals into the political system. These individuals then exploit their positions of power and influence to prioritize their personal agendas over the welfare of the nation and its people.  

  Read more : What is the criminalisation of politics?  

What are the recent trends?  

Data by the ADR reveals that the number of candidates with criminal charges getting elected to Parliament has been on the rise since 2004.  

In 2004, around 24% of Members of Parliament (MPs) had pending criminal cases against them. By 2009, this percentage increased to 30%, followed by a further rise to 34% in 2014. In 2019, as many as 43% of MPs had criminal cases pending against them.  

According to a recent report published by ADR, in the recently held Karnataka elections, approximately 45 per cent of the candidates had criminal cases registered against them. Nearly 30 per cent of these candidates were accused of grave offences, including rape and murder.  

What are the causes of criminalisation of politics in India?  

Attraction of the strongmen : Due to the government’s failure to address the socio-economic and political concerns of the people, they are attracted towards people with a criminal image. These strongmen, who possess both power and wealth, are expected to fulfill the needs of the people.  

Vote bank politics: Money and muscle power of criminals help political parties gain votes. Since, in India electoral politics is more about caste, ethnicity, religion and several other factors, candidates overcome the reputational loss due to criminal charges and come out as victorious in elections.  

Black money in elections: Electoral politics is largely dependent on the money and the funding that it receives. Since candidates with criminal records often possess greater wealth, they ensure greater inflow in money, labour and other advantages that may help a party in successful campaign, and also possess greater ‘winnability’. Researech suggests that a candidate with a tainted reputation is three times more likely to win an election than a candidate with a clean record.  

Lack of Intra-party democracy: Political parties in India largely lack intra-party democracy and the decisions on candidature are largely taken by the elite leadership of the party. Thus, politicians with criminal records often escape the scrutiny by local workers and organisation of the party.  

Lack of adequate deterrence: Due to the low levels of convictions of MPs and MLAs, and delays in trials, political parties are not deterred from giving tickets to criminals.  

Loopholes in the functioning of Election Commission : The Election Commission has prescribed forms for the contestants of elections to disclose their property details, cases pending in courts, convictions etc. while filing their nomination papers. However, these steps have not been stringent enough to break the nexus between crime and politics.  

What are the impacts of criminalisation of politics in India?  

Undermines democracy: The foundation of a democracy is the trust between its citizens and those elected to govern on their behalf. When elected representatives have criminal backgrounds, it undermines this trust and erodes the credibility of the democratic system.  

Poor governance: Individuals with criminal backgrounds often lack the skills, education, and understanding necessary to govern effectively. Their policies and decisions may be guided by their own personal interests rather than the interests of their constituents.  

Cultivates culture of impunity: Criminalisation of politics can foster a culture of impunity where individuals believe they can commit crimes without facing consequences, which can lead to increased crime rates and a general lack of respect for the law.  

Encourages corruption: Politicians with criminal backgrounds are more likely to engage in corrupt practices, such as bribery, fraud, and embezzlement, further undermining the legitimacy of the government and public faith in it.  

Impact on economic development : The chronic corruption and mismanagement associated with criminal politicians can deter both domestic and foreign investors, stymie economic growth, and exacerbate poverty and inequality.  

Hampers social development: With corruption and self-interest driving policymaking, social development initiatives, such as health, education, and welfare programs, can be severely compromised, preventing the upliftment of disadvantaged groups.  

Taints international reputation: The criminalisation of politics can damage India’s reputation on the international stage, making it more difficult to engage in beneficial relationships with other countries and international organizations.  

What are the initiatives taken so far to overcome the issue of the criminalisation of politics in India?  

Constitutional initiative: Articles 84 and 173 deal with eligibility, whereas articles 102 and 191 deal with the disqualification of the House of Parliament and state legislative assemblies respectively.  

Legislative initiative: Indian Penal Code: Chapter IX A of Indian Penal Code deals with offences relating to elections . There are nine portions in it. For crimes like bribery, improper influence, and impersonation during elections, it defines them and lays forth the associated penalties.  

Representation of People Act (RPA), 1951: Section 8 of the Act lists certain offences which, if a person is convicted of any of them, disqualifies him from being elected, or continuing as, a Member of Parliament or Legislative Assembly.  

A candidate for any National or State Assembly elections is required to furnish an affidavit, in the shape of Form 26 appended to the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 . Failure to furnish this information, concealment of information or giving of false information is an offence under Section125A of the RPA .   

What are some of the landmark judgements on criminalisation of politics in India? 

In Union of India (UOI) v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Anr, 2002 , the SC held that every candidate, contesting an election to the Parliament, State Legislatures or Municipal Corporation, must declare their criminal records, financial records and educational qualifications along with their nomination paper.  

In Ramesh Dalal vs. Union of India, 2005 , the SC held that a sitting MP or MLA shall also be subject to disqualification from contesting elections if he is convicted and sentenced to not less than 2 years of imprisonment by a court of law.  

The SC in  Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India case , 2018 had also directed political parties to publish online the pending criminal cases of their candidates. In this case, the court left the matter of disqualification of politicians carrying criminal charges against them to Parliament saying that the court cannot add to the grounds of disqualification.  

Order to establish Special Courts: Accordingly, the Union Government facilitated setting up of 12 Special Courts in States which had 65 and above pending cases, for expeditious trial of criminal cases involving MP/MLAs. Accordingly , 12 Special Courts (02 in NCT of Delhi and 01 each in the state of UP, Bihar, WB, MP, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Tamil Nadu and Kerala) were constituted. Performance of these special courts is being monitored by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.  

What are the various recommendations on de-criminalization of politics?  

Read here: Important Recommendations  

What should be done?  

Legal reforms: The laws concerning the disqualification of candidates with criminal backgrounds need to be strengthened. For instance , 2nd ARC recommended amending section 8 of RPA to disqualify all persons facing charges related to grave and heinous offences and corruption, where charges have been framed six months before the election .   

Time-bound justice delivery system: Fast tracking trials and expediting the judicial process through a time-bound justice delivery system will weed out the corrupt as well as criminal elements in the political system.  

Pressure on political parties: P ressure must be exerted on political parties to make them accountable for their choices. Political parties must realise that they must follow the rule of law and that they are not above the law.  

Strict enforcement of directives: The ECI needs to strictly enforce the directives of the Supreme Court. Parties that do not comply with these directives should face penalties, including fines, as suggested by the ADR. In extreme cases, non-compliant parties could be deregistered.  

Internal democracy in political parties: Encouraging internal democracy within political parties can also help. When party members have a say in candidate selection, they are more likely to choose individuals of integrity.  

Implementing recommendations of various committees: The recommendations of several committees, such as the Vohra Committee (1993) and Goswami Committee and law commission report (170 and 244 th), which have focused on tackling the criminalisation of politics, need to be fully implemented.  

Use of technology: Technology can be harnessed to ensure speedy trials and provide easy access to information about candidates. For instance, online platforms could be used to maintain a publicly accessible database of the criminal records of all political candidates.  

Sources : ADR , Indian Express ( Article1 , Article2 ), Department of Justice , Free Press Journal , SCO  

Type your email…

Search Articles

Latest articles.

• UPSC Prelims Marathon 12th July – Amendment of Constitution & Basic Structure of the Constitution – 2024
• [Download] New and Improved 9 PM UPSC Weekly Compilation – July 2024 – 1st week
• [Answered] UPSC Mains Answer Writing 11th July 2024 I Mains Marathon
• [Download] New 10 PM Weekly Compilation – July 2024 – 1st week
• 10 PM UPSC Current Affairs Quiz 11 July, 2024
• 9 PM UPSC Current Affairs Articles 11th July, 2024
• UPSC Prelims Marathon 11th July – Directive Principles & Fundamental Duties – 2024
• [Answered] UPSC Mains Answer Writing 10th July 2024 I Mains Marathon
• 10 PM UPSC Current Affairs Quiz 10 July, 2024
• 9 PM UPSC Current Affairs Articles 10th July, 2024

Prelims 2024 Current Affairs

• Art and Culture
• Indian Economy
• Science and Technology
• Environment  & Ecology
• International Relations
• Polity &  Nation
• Important Bills and Acts
• International Organizations
• Index, Reports and Summits
• Government Schemes and Programs
• Miscellaneous
• Species in news

All India Open Test(Simulator X)

• "प्रजा ही प्रभु है"
• "No Office in this land is more important than that of being a citizen - Felix Frankfurter"

Criminalisation of Politics: A Grave Threat to Democracy

The infiltration of criminals into politics has become a growing concern, raising serious questions about the integrity of democratic processes. The criminalisation of politics, with candidates charged with heinous offences holding positions of power, has cast a shadow on governance, accountability, and the people's trust, writes Diksha Puri.

Recently, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an advocacy group focused on electoral reforms, wrote a letter to the Election Commission of India (ECI) urging the Commission to take action against political parties that have failed to disclose the criminal backgrounds of candidates they have nominated in various assembly elections conducted in recent years.

Prof. Trilochan Sastry, Founder and Trustee of  Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) speaks on criminalisation of politics  

Based on the Supreme Court’s directives on September 25, 2018, and February 13, 2020, political parties have been instructed to disclose the criminal histories of candidates contesting elections. They are also required to provide reasons for nominating these candidates, regardless of their perceived chances of winning. The ECI has further issued a directive to ensure the implementation of the court’s orders regarding the declaration of candidates’ criminal backgrounds. However, despite multiple reminders, several political parties in India persistently neglect to fulfil these obligations of public disclosure.

“Electoral reforms have been at the forefront of ADR’s commitment. We have been doing many surveys on criminal politicians, and we ensure that this information is readily available to the public. The time has come for the Election Commission of India to take decisive action against political parties that willfully defy the directives of both the Supreme Court and the ECI. Individuals engaged in criminal activities are ill-suited for governance as their focus remains fixated on their unlawful pursuits. Consequently, corruption thrives, public services deteriorate, roads suffer, government schools falter, and public healthcare centres operate inefficiently. These criminals prioritise self-interest over serving the people. Hence, those genuinely dedicated to public service must be given tickets by political parties to contest in elections, but there is no political will to make this a reality,” states Prof. Trilochan Sastry, Founder and Trustee of ADR.

According to Professor Sastry, the voters need to be well-informed about the serious criminal cases linked to the candidates they are considering supporting. He suggests that if voters were provided with comprehensive details of these criminal cases right at the polling booth before they cast their votes, it could have a significant impact on the electoral outcomes. By making such information readily available, many candidates with criminal backgrounds may lose public trust and support.

Senior advocate Vikas Singh, who previously represented the Election Commission in a case pertaining to the criminalisation of politics, says there are huge complexities surrounding the matter. He emphasises that the responsibility should lie with political parties not to nominate candidates with criminal backgrounds. In an interview with The Probe, Vikas Singh, who also serves as the President of the Supreme Court Bar Association (SCBA), notes that the political class is employing manipulative tactics in an attempt to undermine the directives of the apex court.

“The Supreme Court’s directive was clear – the criminal backgrounds of candidates given tickets by political parties should be made public on the website. However, this measure proved ineffective as criminals contested and even won elections. Recognising the need for a more robust solution, I proposed that pressure be exerted on political parties, making them accountable for their choices. It was crucial to question why they were granting tickets to criminals instead of individuals with good reputations. Unfortunately, political parties started circumventing the directive of the Supreme Court by adopting a standard defence tactic, claiming false cases were foisted against the candidates nominated by them. They started presenting these criminal candidates as social workers. In each case, they began using this generic one-liner defence without examining the merits of the case. As a result, the Supreme Court’s order was defeated,” explains Singh. 

Singh questions, “Why should politicians be given special powers? Can a charge-sheeted person become an IAS officer? Can he hold any civil services posts? Then why should politicians be given this unfair privilege which goes against the very spirit of our democracy? In this case, the change can only be brought in by the Parliament. The Election Commission has been turned into a toothless body. Only political will can bring about change”.

According to a recent report published by ADR, approximately 45 per cent of the candidates from Congress, BJP, and JD(S) who participated in the recently held Karnataka elections had criminal cases registered against them. Alarmingly, nearly 30 per cent of these candidates were accused of grave offences, including rape and murder. Professor Sastry highlights that India stands out as one of the few countries where criminals are permitted to participate freely in elections and emerge as winners.

“Look, let’s take the example of the United States. If someone has a murder or rape case, they would never even be considered for a political ticket. Such individuals would be excluded from contesting elections. However, in India, that is not the case. This poses a serious threat to our democratic process. Democracy with criminals is not a healthy democracy. It is crucial to raise awareness among the people about the issue of criminalisation of politics. They need to understand that if they vote for such individuals, they are not just harming the country but also themselves. For instance, if you are a person from an economically disadvantaged background and you vote for such candidates, your children’s education will suffer because the schools won’t be properly run. Similarly, when you need medical assistance, the hospitals will not function effectively due to the massive corruption indulged in by these criminals. You will be deprived of basic amenities and services,” notes Professor Sastry. 

According to Gopal Sankaranarayanan, a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court of India, many politicians are well aware of the significant power and influence they hold as lawmakers. They recognise that their positions grant them the ability to not only block any laws that could hold them accountable but also to exert influence over government officials, ensuring that cases are not filed against them and that they remain protected.

“ADR surveys have shown a gradual rise in the numbers of individuals with criminal offences and charges framed against them. Currently, nearly 44 per cent of all Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) face serious criminal charges. This is a highly concerning situation. However, both the Supreme Court and the Election Commission find their hands tied in addressing this issue. The resolution lies in the existence of a political will, which unfortunately is challenging to come by,” asserts Sankaranarayanan. 

Jagdeep S Chhokar, the Founder and Trustee of ADR, expresses his concerns about the existing laws and their suitability in addressing the issue of criminalisation in politics. He highlights the exploitation of these laws by politicians who take advantage of the loopholes. He says there is an immediate need to tackle the challenge of the intertwining of criminalisation and financial power. 

“In the current political landscape, politicians and political parties often prioritise candidate selection based on their perceived “winnability.” However, this criterion solely focuses on a candidate’s ability to secure electoral victory, disregarding the means employed to achieve that victory. Unfortunately, many elections witness the use of illicit methods and unfair practices, which is a departure from the principles of genuine public service. Politics has transformed into a pursuit of power rather than a commitment to serving the public interest,” explains Chhokar.

One major concern in the realm of criminalisation of politics is the classification of political cases filed by rivals as criminal records, which raises questions about the definition and severity of a criminal record. This blurring of lines between politically motivated cases and genuine criminal offences makes it even more easier for political parties to take advantage of the loopholes in the current system. 

Political scientist Dr Sandeep Shastri sheds light on the reasons behind the increasing presence of individuals with criminal records in politics. He says that the time has come to reevaluate the definition of a criminal record. “There is an element of numbness that has got into the voters in defining and deciding whom they want to vote for, and that factor does not seem to be high on the order of their priority. This broad category of criminal records includes all types of people—even those against whom political cases filed by rivals have also been classified as a criminal record. What constitutes a criminal record in terms of the seriousness of the crime? All this must be seriously looked at. Today, voters vote keeping in mind the party label and not keeping in mind the candidate label. So, most people don’t look at the profile of a candidate, but they are looking at the profile of the political party. In my view, the combination of the above factors has led to those with criminal records being voted to the legislature,” states Shastri.

Despite repeated calls for electoral reforms and transparency in the political system, the issue of criminalisation of politics continues to plague India’s democratic landscape. The rampant nomination of candidates with criminal backgrounds not only undermines the principles of democracy but also erodes public trust in the electoral process. The lack of political will and loopholes in existing laws have allowed this alarming trend to persist. The time for comprehensive electoral reforms is long overdue, and failure to address the persistent issue of criminalisation of politics poses a grave threat to the very fabric of Indian democracy.

Criminalization of Politics

Recently, the Indian Supreme Court published some necessary mandates to avert the criminalisation of politics as many lawsuits have been withdrawn against MPs ( Members of Parliament ) and MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly) in the past. So to curb this, the Apex court in India declared that a criminal lawsuit against a Member of Parliament or Member of Legislative Assembly can get withdrawn merely after obtaining the approval of the State High Court involved.

In another instance, the Supreme Court published a few measures to eliminate the criminalisation from lawmakers. Keep reading the article below to know more about the criminalisation of politics UPSC concepts that can help you better prepare for your upcoming IAS exam.

Learn about major 25 Important Supreme Court Judgements for UPSC and related notes in the linked article.

What do we mean by the criminalisation of politics?

The criminalisation of politics implies the increasing involvement of criminals and individuals with criminal charges in Indian politics. In addition, this term means people coming from criminal backgrounds and becoming politicians and elected delegates.

Furthermore, as per Section 8 of the Indian Representative of People Act, any individual imprisoned for a term of more than 2 years cannot file as a candidate in elections until 6 years of his release from jail. However, due to the prevailing criminalisation of politics in India, this provision is not effective in practical life.

Understanding the Causes of Criminalisation in Politics

The most significant cause of the criminalisation of politics is the profane relationship between bureaucracy and politicians.

This unwanted and destructive connection between bureaucracy and political managers increased the scope of the criminalisation of politics. Religion and caste are both accountable for the criminalisation of politics. Also, in bureaucracy, there are specific approaches and regulations for promotion. However, religion and caste both meddle in this procedure, and in numerous Indian states, less competent people get a chance to serve as public servants and in politics.

Also, refer to the following links:

What are Some Reasons for the Criminalisation of Politics in India?

Here are some of the top reasons for the criminalisation of politics in India.

The political parties have massive expenses for elections and other pursuits to get higher votes and gain power. In addition, a politician’s connection with the constituency delivers a suitable climate to political corruption and criminality.

Corruption further plays a crucial role in fostering the criminalisation of politics. By bribing people from a criminal background, one can corrupt the entire system to gain power and political dominance.

• Lack of governance

In our country, at the time of contesting elections, there is usually a lack of governance. In addition, given this lack of governance, there is usually no true plan, and no one follows proper procedures set for fighting fair elections.

• Narrow Self-interests

Publicising the complete criminal history of election nominees fielded by different political parties may not be reasonable. A significant group of Indian voters tends to vote through a constrained lens of society interests like religion or caste.

What are some Consequences of the Criminalisation of Politics?

Below are some repercussions of the criminalisation of politics.

• The existence of individuals with criminal backgrounds in Indian politics and the nation’s law-making holds adverse consequences on the quality of the country’s democracy.
• Tremendous portions of unlawful funds pour into the electoral cycle due to comprehensive connections with the unlawful underworld.
• The criminalisation of Indian politics holds the effect of restricting the procedure of righteousness and causing further uncertainties in trials.
• Offenders entering Indian politics further boosts crime in public life. It negatively affects the state organisations, including the executive, bureaucracy, legislature, and courts.
• The criminalisation of politics presents a culture of violence in the community and exemplifies the youth.

In a nutshell, the criminalisation of politics and corruption is striking at the origins of democracy. Therefore, it is high time that the Indian Parliament takes measures urgently to restrain this risk.

Kickstart your UPSC 2023  Preparation today!

For the best preparation strategy for competitive exams candidates can visit the linked article and get detailed study material and preparation tips to excel in the examination.

Other Related Links:

Frequently Asked Questions on Criminalization of Politics

What do we mean by the criminalisation of politics in india.

The criminalisation of politics in India is the increased involvement of criminals and individuals with criminal charges entering politics.

How do I study the topic of criminalisation of politics?

You can refer to the points above and go through detailed online notes to clear your concepts for this topic.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Your Mobile number and Email id will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Request OTP on Voice Call

Post My Comment

Register with BYJU'S & Download Free PDFs

Register with byju's & watch live videos.

Shopping Cart

No products in the cart.

Criminalization of Politics in India: Causes, Effects, Measures

From Current Affairs Notes for UPSC » Editorials & In-depths » This topic

* Updates at the bottom

The rising percentage of members of parliament who have a criminal background: 2004 – 24%, 2009 – 30%, 2014 – 34% and 2019 -43%. Around 50% of MPs in the new Lok Sabha have criminal records. This increasing number of members with criminal records in parliament endangers the survival of any true democracy. In this article, you will learn everything about the criminalisation of politics viz- what, why, causes, consequences, measures, challenges, solutions, and also the verdict of SC regarding criminal politics.

This topic of “Criminalization of Politics in India: Causes, Effects, Measures” is important from the perspective of the UPSC IAS Examination , which falls under General Studies Portion.

What is the Criminalisation of Politics?

The criminalisation of politics refers to the increasing participation of criminals in the electoral process and selection of the same as elected representatives of the people.

Express Learning Programme (ELP)

• Optional Notes
• Study Hacks
• Prelims Sureshots (Repeated Topic Compilations)
• Current Affairs (Newsbits, Editorials & In-depths)
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• Post-Independence Indian History
• World History
• Art & Culture
• Geography (World & Indian)
• Indian Society & Social Justice
• Indian Polity
• International Relations
• Indian Economy
• Environment 
• Agriculture
• Internal Security
• Disasters & its Management
• General Science – Biology
• General Studies (GS) 4 – Ethics
• Syllabus-wise learning
• Political Science
• Anthropology
• Public Administration

SIGN UP NOW

What is the status of Criminal Politics in India?

• The criminalisation of politics is one of the primary concerns in India as many politicians facing charges of murder, corruption , abduction, and rape continue to be legislators.
• Around 1/3 rd the members of the current parliament have criminal cases filed against them.
• Data suggests that voters don’t mind electing candidates facing criminal cases.

Prelims Sureshots – Most Probable Topics for UPSC Prelims

A Compilation of the Most Probable Topics for UPSC Prelims, including Schemes, Freedom Fighters, Judgments, Acts, National Parks, Government Agencies, Space Missions, and more. Get a guaranteed 120+ marks!

How did Indian politics become criminalized?

Muscle power:.

• Muscle power has been ingrained into Indian politics for a very long time.
• Many politicians are thriving today based on muscle power provided by criminals.
• Such politicians chose muscle power in order to gain a vote bank in the country.

Money Power:

• It is a well-accepted fact that huge election costs are the major cause of corruption in India.
• A candidate spends lakhs of rupees to get elected and even if he gets elected, the total salary he gets during his term as a legislator will be meager compared to his election expenses.
• However, criminal activities help in generating a huge amount of money to fund the elections.

Loopholes in the functioning of elections:

The voters are generally not aware of the history of the candidate, qualifications, and cases pending against him.

Weak Judicial System & Denial of Justice:

A huge pile of cases is pending in District courts, High Courts, and Supreme Court against these criminal cum politicians.

Why criminal politics is a grave concern?

• It reveals the low ethical and moral values of our legislators which leads to the enactment of arbitrary and discriminatory laws.
• Misusing executives for personal gains and undermining the law of the land.
• The quality of candidates contesting elections is important for better governance.
• Loss of public faith in the government as well as judiciary since courts failed to contain it.
• It affects the efficiency of legislatures leading to poor governance.

What are the measures taken?

The Supreme Court and Election Commission of India (ECI) have taken some commendable measures to reform the electoral process as follows.

ECI’s reforms

• ECI has achieved substantial success in controlling the role of muscle power via measures like the effective implementation of the model code of conduct and also established the Expense Monitoring Cell.
• Mandatory declaration of assets and existing criminal charges in self-sworn affidavits to the ECI prior to elections has brought in some transparency.

The Supreme Court’s verdicts

• Criminal records
• Financial records
• Educational qualifications

If the candidate fails to file any of the above three declarations, the Returning Officer will have the right to reject his nomination papers. SC ruled that all three declarations will have to be truthful.

• SC in (Lily Thomas Vs Union of India 2013) declared that upon conviction, charge-sheeted MPs and MLAs would be disqualified with immediate effect from holding membership of the house, without being given 3 months to appeal.
• SC in 2014 accepted the Law Commission recommendations and passed an order directing that trials against sitting MPs and MLAs should be concluded within a year of charges being framed and conducted on a day-to-day basis.
• Some other attempts by the judiciary: prohibiting those in jail from contesting elections, directing the EC to bring the issue of election-related freebies under the ambit of the Code of Conduct, the Allahabad High Court banning caste, and religion-based political rallies.
• Recent SC verdict: The judgement was given over the much-awaited pronouncement on the petitions asking it to prohibit politicians facing the heinous criminal charges against rape, murder, and kidnapping from contesting elections.

Centre’s measures

In 2017, the Union government started a scheme to establish 12 special courts for a year to fast-track the trial of criminal cases against 1,581 MPs and MLAs.

How effective were those measures?

• Debarring of politicians has no effect since rates of conviction are too low and trials themselves are subject to long delays as showcased by a recent Law Commission report.
• Many politicians are filing false affidavits about their annual income, wealth details.
• About 90% of cases transferred to the special courts set up under the Centre’s scheme are pending as of now.

What are the key features of the  SC verdict on Criminal Politics?

Political parties.

• SC’s Observation – The rapid criminalization of politics cannot be solved through the mere disqualification of criminal legislators. Cleaning politics from criminal elements starts only by means of purifying political parties themselves. Since political parties are the major institution of Indian democracy, they play an important role in the interface between private citizens and the government. They act as a medium through which interests and problems of the people are showcased in Parliament.
• SC’s verdict – The Supreme Court ordered the political parties to publish the pending criminal cases of their candidates online.
• It asked the Parliament to create a strong law in order to cleanse political parties of leaders facing trials for serious crimes.
• Such a law should make it mandatory for political parties to remove leaders accused of “heinous and grievous” crimes.
• Parties must reject tickets to criminal elements in both parliamentary and Assembly polls.
• The Bench also made it clear that the court cannot make law for Parliament by providing disqualification to prohibit such candidates from contesting elections.
• SC declared that the candidates should disclose their criminal cases against them to the Election Commission in BLOCK LETTERS as well as to their respective political parties.
• The parties, in turn, should publish the full details of their candidate on their websites for public view.

What are the concerns with the judgement?

• The SC has passed the burden to the ECI, although the ECI has been asking for the apex court’s aid for the past two decades.
• Parliament is required to make a law on the matter as per Article 101 (1) of the constitution, however, Parliament regardless of who is in power has always been reluctant to legislate on the issue.
• The bench pronounced that it is not in a position to enable disqualification of candidates who face criminal charges thus withdrawing from its responsibility to solve the issue.
• Voters do not generally read the websites of political parties.
• The recommendation regarding the publicity campaigns about the criminal background of candidates by political parties sounds unreasonable.
• The definition of heinous crimes may change as per times and societal conditions.

What more could be done?

• A law to prohibit candidates who are charged with heinous crimes will need a broad consensus across the party lines.
• More fast-track courts to try the cases dealing with serious charges against the candidates.
• To reduce money power,
• To create a level playing field,
• To enable public-spirited people to contest elections thereby ensuring equality of opportunities,
• To break the political-corporate nexus thereby ending rent-seeking and crony capitalism.
• To change the election’s focus towards people’s problems rather than on raising funds through illegitimate means, i.e., focus on development politics.
• Stricter implementation of anti-corruption laws.
• Transparency and audit mechanisms.
• Representation of Peoples Act (RPA) needs to be amended and there should be stricter actions against serious offenders.
• Election Commission should be given more power to deal with corruption cases.
• Inner party democracy needs to be improved.

Supreme Court has done its part in decriminalizing Indian politics. But SC or Election Commission cannot decriminalize politics single-handed since they require support from Legislation too. Hence it is in the hands of the Parliament to frame a law that decriminalizes Indian politics effectively.

In the words of Dr. Rajendra Prasad , “A constitution like a machine is a lifeless thing. It acquires life because of the men who control it and operate it”. Therefore good and quality politicians are needed for India to become a vibrant democracy through good governance .

Practice Question:

• The criminalization of politics is a disease that poses a grave threat to our democracy if left unchecked. Discuss the initiatives taken to check criminal politics and examine the effectiveness of those initiatives.
• April 25, 2023: The killing of Atiq Ahmed , a notorious criminal turned politician in India, highlighted the issue of criminalization of politics in the country. Nearly 40% of the current Indian Parliament members have criminal cases pending against them, with many not feeling threatened due to the slow pace of trials.

GET MONTHLY COMPILATIONS

Related Posts

SC Verdict on Pegasus Row

Padmanabha Swamy Temple Verdict: overview

Public Call Facility

Equipping IAS Officers for Manufacturing Sector

Holistic article,great job??

There was a problem reporting this post.

Block Member?

Please confirm you want to block this member.

You will no longer be able to:

• See blocked member's posts
• Mention this member in posts

Please allow a few minutes for this process to complete.

Back to Faculty Bibliography

Alan Dershowitz , Trumped Up: How Criminalization of Political Differences Endangers Democracy (2017).

Abstract: In our current age of hyper-partisan politics, nearly everyone takes sides. This is especially true with regard to the Trump presidency. It has become difficult to have a reasonable discussion about the most controversial president in our recent history. For Trump zealots, their president has not only committed no crimes, he has done nothing wrong. For anti-Trump zealots, nothing Trump has done—even in foreign policy—is good. Everything he has done is wrong, and since it is wrong, it must necessarily be criminal. This deeply undemocratic fallacy—that political sins must be investigated and prosecuted as criminal—is an exceedingly dangerous trend. Hardening positions on both sides has been manifested by increasing demands to criminalize political differences. Both sides scream “lock ‘em up” instead of making substantive criticisms of opposing views. The real fear, as Alan Dershowitz argues, in this compelling collection, is that we have weakened our national commitment to civil liberties as the Left becomes ever more intolerant and the Right slips into authoritarian rhetoric. The vibrant center is weakening, with traditional liberalism and conservatism becoming further apart, not just in approach, but in their respect for Constitutional norms that have served us well for more than two centuries. While Donald Trump is not the only cause of this profound division, his election drew it to the surface and made it the dominant paradigm of political debate. Unless we as a nation begin to focus again on what unites us rather than on what divides us, America might not survive the next decade.

Criminalization of Politics and Politicization of Criminals: A Need for Decriminalization

Maharishi Journal of Law and Society, Vol. 2, Issue 1& 2, Jan-Dec, 2019

13 Pages Posted: 17 Apr 2022

Dr. Jasdeep Kaur

Chitkara School of Law, Chitkara University

Date Written: Jan 2019

Criminalization of politics has become all pervasive phenomenon. It can be visualized in two different senses. In the first sense, it means direct entry and interference of criminals to parliament and state legislatures. In the second sense, it includes interference of criminals by financing any candidate, providing anti-social man power, booth capturing, contract killing of the rival candidates etc. It continues to be a very big concern with an increase in number of MP’s and MLA’s with criminal record. The last ten general elections show that even after the deployment of armed forces, para military forces, framing of different codes of conduct, taking special security measure etc., the law and order situation have failed miserably for checking criminalization of politics. The Law Commission of India and several other committees have already recommended different means to overcome the present situation of criminalization of politics. The Supreme Court of India has from time to time given the guidelines for uprooting the phenomenon of criminalization of politics. However, it is of no avail as the government lacks political will in letter and spirit to implement various guidelines and recommendations. The need of the hour is to enlighten the people of India not to vote to such politicians and parties who are involving crime in politics.

Keywords: Criminalization of Politics, State Legislature, Parliament, Guidelines, Recommendations

Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation

Dr. Jasdeep Kaur (Contact Author)

Chitkara school of law, chitkara university ( email ).

Chandigarh–Patiala National Highway (NH- 64) Punjab, 140 401 India

Do you have a job opening that you would like to promote on SSRN?

Paper statistics, related ejournals, discrimination, law & justice ejournal.

Subscribe to this fee journal for more curated articles on this topic

Law & Society: Legislation eJournal

Political institutions: bureaucracies & public administration ejournal, india law ejournal, criminal law, courts & procedure ejournal, democratization: building states & democratic processes ejournal.

General Studies

All Programmes

Study Material

Criminalization of Politics

What is ‘criminalization of politics’ and its status in india, what are the reasons for the criminalization of politics in india, what are the legal and constitutional tools to deal with the criminalization of politics in india, what are the outcomes of criminalization of the indian political landscape, what are the various measures taken to deal with the issue of criminalization of politics in india, what are the ways to decriminalize indian politics.

Prelims:    Indian Polity and Governance – Constitution, Political System, Panchayati Raj, Public Policy, Rights Issues, etc.

Mains :   Salient Features of the Representation of People’s Act,  Appointment to various Constitutional Posts, Powers, Functions and Responsibilities of various Constitutional Bodies.

In India, the Criminalization of politics has become a growing concern, with a significant number of elected officials facing criminal charges. This has led to public distrust in the political system and the perception that politicians use their power to evade the law.

The criminalization of politics refers to the involvement of individuals with a criminal record in the political arena. This can involve criminals running for and be elected to positions in Parliament and State Legislatures. It often occurs due to the close relationship between politicians and criminal elements.

Association of Democratic Reforms(ADR) report reveals that in the 2014 General Elections for the 16th Lok Sabha, 186 (34%) out of the 541 winners had criminal cases filed against them. This is a jump from the numbers for the 2009 elections, when, out of the 521 winners, 158 (30%) had declared criminal cases.

There are several factors contributing to the criminalization of the political landscape in India:

• Muscle power: For winnability, Political parties can even hire or nominate criminals as candidates because of their influence. Many politicians chose muscle power to gain a vote bank in the country.
• Money power: Political parties and candidates use the money generated by criminal activities to influence voters, secure their support, and win elections. There also exists a quid pro quo between politicians and criminals to exchange favours or benefits.
• Loopholes in the functioning of the election machinery: The voters are not usually aware of the history of the candidate, qualifications, and cases pending against him.  
• Ineffective judicial system & delayed justice: The thousands and thousands of cases are pending in District Courts, High Courts, and Supreme Court against these criminals cum politicians.
• Lack of enforcement: Several laws and court judgments have not helped much due to the lack of enforcement of laws and judgments.
• Vested interests: Publishing the criminal history of candidates fielded by political parties may be ineffective, as a major chunk of voters tend to vote through a narrow prism of community interests like caste or religion.
• Politico-criminal nexus: This nexus between politicians and criminals, such as organized crime syndicates, drug cartels, etc, helps to advance their own interests or to gain power and influence.
• Indian Constitution does not specify what disqualifies a person from contesting elections for the Parliament, Legislative assembly, or any other legislature.
• In the present scenario, under the Representation of Peoples (RP) Act 1951, lawmakers cannot contest elections only after their conviction in a criminal case.
• Section 8 of the act, i.e., disqualification on conviction for certain offenses, according to which an individual punished with a jail term of more than two years cannot stand in an election for six years after the jail term has ended.
• The Election Commission of India, under the Representation of the People Act 1951, can remove or reduce the period of a person’s disqualification.

The criminalization of politics can have negative effects on democracy and the rule of law. It creates an environment where politicians and political parties engage in corrupt practices and undermines the trust of citizens in the political system. 

• Impediment to Development: Criminalization of politics can act as an impediment to development, as politicians with criminal backgrounds may prioritize their own interests over the welfare of the people.
• Weakening of Democratic Institutions: The presence of criminals in politics can also weaken democratic institutions, as they may try to manipulate the system to their advantage.
• Impact on the Principle of Free and Fair Election: Criminalization of Politics goes against the principles of a free and fair election by limiting the options for voters to choose a deserving candidate.
• Impairing Good Governance : The issue of criminal elements becoming elected officials undermines the democratic process and hampers the delivery of good governance.
• Affecting Integrity of Public Servants: It also leads to increased circulation of black money during and after elections, which in turn increases corruption in society and affects the working of public servants.
• Causes Social Disharmony: It introduces a culture of violence in society and sets a bad precedent for the youth to follow, and reduces people's faith in democracy as a system of governance.
• Erodes Public Trust: Criminalization of politics erodes the public confidence in elected politicians who indulge in criminal activities.

Supreme Court  

• Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002): Supreme Court issued an order directing every candidate seeking election to the Parliament or a State Legislature to declare the criminal antecedents, assets, etc.
• Immediate Disqualification of Convicted MPs and MLAs: The Supreme Court, in Lily Thomas case(2013) , held that charge-sheeted Members of Parliament and MLAs, on conviction for offenses, will be immediately disqualified from holding membership of the House without being given three months’ time for appeal, as was the case before. 
• Fast Track Trial: The Supreme Court in March 2014 accepted the recommendations of the Law Commission and passed an order directing that trials against sitting MPs and MLAs must be concluded within a year of charges being framed.
• Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2019): In this case, the Supreme Court of India ordered political parties to publish the criminal records of their candidates on their websites, social media handles, and newspapers.

Election Commission of India

• Booth Capturing: In 1989, a provision was made for the adjournment of polls or countermanding elections in case of booth capturing. Booth capturing includes seizure and taking possession of polling stations, threatening and preventing any elector from going to polling stations.
• Prohibition of Arms: Entering into the neighbourhood of a polling station with any kind of arms is considered a cognizable offense.
• Curbing Muscle Power: The ECI has achieved considerable success in containing the role of muscle power through measures such as the effective implementation of the model code of conduct.
• Model Code of Conduct(MCC): The Model Code of Conduct is implemented by the Election Commission, from time to time, by using its constitutional powers under Article 324.
• Affidavits: Mandatory declaration of assets and existing criminal charges in affidavits to the ECI prior to elections has brought in some transparency.
• Strict Legal Provisions like Lifetime Ban: The election commission endorsed the call for a lifetime ban in the apex court. It had argued that such a move would “champion the cause of decriminalization of politics”.
• Proactive Judiciary: Given the reluctance by the political parties to curb the criminalization of politics and its growing detrimental effects on Indian democracy, Indian courts must now seriously consider banning people accused of serious criminal charges from contesting elections.
• Active Citizenry: Voters should also be aware of the potential to misuse funds, gifts, and other incentives during elections.
• State Funding of Elections: Various committees, such as Dinesh Goswami(1990) and Inderjeet Committee(1988), on the electoral reforms, have recommended state funding of elections which will curb the use of black money to a large extent and thereby will have a significant impact on limiting criminalization of politics.
• Strengthening Election Commission: Regulating the affairs of a political party is essential for a cleaner electoral process. Therefore, it is imperative to strengthen the Election Commission of India and ensure its independence.

Previous Year Questions(PYQs)

Q) Consider the following statements: (2020)

• According to the Constitution of India, a person who is eligible to vote can be made a minister in a State for six months even if he/she is not a member of the Legislature of that State.
• According to the Representation of People Act, 1951, a person convicted of a criminal offence and sentenced to imprisonment for five years is permanently disqualified from contesting an election even after his release from prison.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(c) Both 1 and 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Frequently Asked Questions(FAQs)

Q)   is model code of conduct enforceable through law.

No, Model Code of Conduct is not enforceable through any law. However, the Election Commission can take action by using its wide powers under Article 324.

Q) Can a person, who is convicted, contest the elections after completing his/her sentence?

According to Representation of People’s 1951, Individuals punished with a jail term of more than two years cannot stand in an election for six years after the jail term has ended. The Election Commission has endorsed multiple times for lifetime ban for the convicted person.

© 2024 Vajiram & Ravi. All rights reserved

• OUR CENTERS Bangalore Delhi Lucknow Mysuru --> Srinagar Dharwad Hyderabad

Call us @ 08069405205

Search Here

• An Introduction to the CSE Exam
• Personality Test
• Annual Calendar by UPSC-2024
• Common Myths about the Exam
• About Insights IAS
• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director's Desk
• Meet Our Team
• Our Branches
• Careers at Insights IAS
• Daily Current Affairs+PIB Summary
• Insights into Editorials
• Insta Revision Modules for Prelims
• Current Affairs Quiz
• Static Quiz
• Current Affairs RTM
• Insta-DART(CSAT)
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Prelims 2024
• Secure (Mains Answer writing)
• Secure Synopsis
• Ethics Case Studies
• Insta Ethics
• Weekly Essay Challenge
• Insta Revision Modules-Mains
• Insta 75 Days Revision Tests for Mains
• Secure (Archive)
• Anthropology
• Law Optional
• Kannada Literature
• Public Administration
• English Literature
• Medical Science
• Mathematics
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Monthly Magazine: CURRENT AFFAIRS 30
• Content for Mains Enrichment (CME)
• InstaMaps: Important Places in News
• Weekly CA Magazine
• The PRIME Magazine
• Insta Revision Modules-Prelims
• Insta-DART(CSAT) Quiz
• Insta 75 days Revision Tests for Prelims 2022
• Insights SECURE(Mains Answer Writing)
• Interview Transcripts
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Prelims
• Answer Keys for Prelims PYQs
• Solve Prelims PYQs
• Previous Years' Question Papers-Mains
• UPSC CSE Syllabus
• Toppers from Insights IAS
• Testimonials
• Felicitation
• UPSC Results
• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Ancient Indian History
• Medieval Indian History
• Modern Indian History
• World History
• World Geography
• Indian Geography
• Indian Society
• Social Justice
• International Relations
• Agriculture
• Environment & Ecology
• Disaster Management
• Science & Technology
• Security Issues
• Ethics, Integrity and Aptitude

• Indian Heritage & Culture
• Enivornment & Ecology

Criminalisation of politics:

Topics Covered: Salient features of the Representation of People’s Act.

The Supreme Court had sought the amicus report on pending cases against legislators on the basis of a petition.

• The report was recently filed by the apex court’s amicus curiae and senior advocate Vijay Hansaria.

Key findings:

• There are a total 4,442 cases pending against legislators across the country. Of this, the number of cases against sitting Members of Parliament and members of State legislatures was 2,556.
• The cases were pending in various special courts exclusively set up to try criminal cases registered against politicians.
• The cases against the legislators include that of corruption, money laundering, damage to public property, defamation and cheating.
• A large number of cases were for violation of Section 188 IPC for wilful disobedience and obstruction of orders promulgated by public servants.
• There are 413 cases in respect of offences, which are punishable with imprisonment for life, out of which in 174 cases sitting MPs/ MLAs are accused.
• A large number of cases were pending at the appearance stage and even non-bailable warrants (NBWs) issued by courts have not been executed.
• Highest number of cases are pending in Uttar Pradesh.

What does the RPA say on this?

Currently, under the Representation of Peoples (RP) Act, lawmakers cannot contest elections only after their conviction in a criminal case.

• 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.

Main reasons for Criminalization:

• Lack of governance.

What is the way out?

• 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.

InstaLinks :

Prelims Link:

• Section 8 of the RP Act.
• SC guidelines in this regard.
• ECI- composition and functions.
• CEC- appointment.
• Powers of Election Commission on matters related to election of candidates.

Mains Link:

Discuss the concerns associated criminalisation of politics and what the Supreme Court done to address these concerns?

Sources: the Hindu.

• Our Mission, Vision & Values
• Director’s Desk
• Commerce & Accountancy
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Prelims
• Previous Years’ Question Papers-Mains
• Environment & Ecology
• Science & Technology

Your Article Library

Criminalization of politics: nature, causes and recent developments.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Criminalization of Politics: Nature, Causes and Recent Developments!

Definition and Nature:

At present we very often come across the words criminalisation of politics. The meaning of the term is quite known to educated people and newspaper readers. For academic purposes a definition is to be given here. When politics or political power is used by self-interest-seeking persons for pecuniary gains or various other advantages such as to get special position in administration or to rise to the higher stage of administration which is normally not feasible.

So criminalisation of politics means to use politics or political power for nefarious gains. To gain something not legal or normal has been called crime. Here the word crime is used in politics in special sense. For example an officer in administration wants to be promoted to higher post. But this is not his due.He uses politics or political power to achieve this. The person succeeds. But the matter does not stop here. The person who helped to get undue privilege will again use this person tor the achievement of his purposes which are, in normal course, not due. This is the policy of give-and-take and this happens behind the curtain.

Hence we find that political power has been or is being used by some persons for the attainment of undue privileges and when this is rampant in the arena of politics we generally call it criminalisation of politics. To get undue favour through the use of political power is a crime. The term crime means an action which constitutes a serious offence against an individual or the state and is punishable by law. Hence gaining something by the use of political power is a crime and is also punishable.

The use of politics or political power is not something new. Even in ancient Greece politics was used by people for personal gains or for rising to a higher stage of power. The misuse or abuse of political power greatly pained Greek philosopher Plato (BC 427-347). That is why he thought of a philosopher-king and introduction of communism in property and family.

He meant that the members of the administrative class will have no private property and family. Plato’s argument was-these two will divert the attention of the members of the ruling class and will corrupt them. He also thought that if the king is a philosopher he will feel no personal attachment to property and wealth. Plato built up this model for the construction of his ideal state. Our point is the mismanagement of the contemporary city-states which were democratic pained him.

Rousseau (1712-1778) was a great admirer of democracy, but he was quite apprehensive of its real existence. He thought that people are corrupt and this will lead to the fall of democracy. That is why we find him saying: were there a people of gods, their government would be democratic. So perfect a form of government is not for men.

Even in Rousseau’s time there were great inequalities of property and wealth. Some people earned property and built up wealth through unfair means and this created un-equalities in wealth and power. So wealth was used to get patronage in political arena and political power was also used to get wealthy.

Causes of Criminalisation of Politics:

The most important cause of criminalisation of politics is the unholy nexus between politicians and bureaucracy. Ramchandra Guha (India after Gandhi) says, “In Jawaharlal Nehru’s time the civil service was shielded from politics, transfers, promotions and the like were decided within the executive branch itself. From the 1970s, however, individual bureaucrats came increasingly to ally with individual politicians or political parties. When the party they allied with was in power, they get the best postings. In return, they energetically implemented the partisan agenda of the politicians”.

This undesirable and dangerous relationship between bureaucracy and political leaders opened the door of criminalisation of politics. The great founders of Indian nation-state thought of an independent bureaucracy. But within two decades of freedom their hope and dream shattered. Both came to an understanding to help each other and this led to the criminalisation of politics.

The interference of politicians in the administration may be regarded as another reason of criminalisation of politics. Guha’s says, “In a letter to the prime minister, the retired civil servant M. N. Buch has highlighted the consequences of this politicisation of the administration. The way the government is now run means that the disciplinary hierarchy of the civil services has completely broken down. A subordinate who does not measure up and pulled up by his superior knows that he can approach a politician, escape the consequences for his own misdeeds and cause the harm to his superior”

In the 1970s this started in embryonic form and today this has assumed an epidemic. Most of the politicians of modern India interfere with administration in one form or another. The civil servants are becoming more and more corrupt, so also the politicians. The net result is politics is, ultimately, criminalised.

Caste and religion both are equally responsible for the criminalisation of politics. In bureaucracy there are certain fixed procedures and rules in the promotion. But caste and religion both interfere in this process. Less qualified and inefficient civil servants get promotion. The quota system is fully responsible. It has been found that a minister of a particular caste or religion will distribute favour to the members of his own caste and religion. In many states of India this is found.

The system of party government is also responsible for the criminalisation of politics. On the eve of general election the leaders of the party give promises to the electorate. The purpose is to win the election. If the party luckily comes to power, the members of the ruling party try to implement the promises. The dark side of this situation is the party in power does not consider the feasibility and rationality of the action or promises unreasonable and impractical ways and techniques are adopted. This is a cause of criminalisation of politics.

In post-independent India strong public opinion against corrupt practices has not developed. Each person knows that that system or practice is corrupt. But there is nobody to protest against it. Rather, he thinks that this is the system and he accepts it. This tendency has finally opened the door of the criminalisation of politics. But if anybody objects to the corrupt practice he is either penalised or deprived of his due.

Un-development, illiteracy, poverty and prismatic nature of Indian social system are collectively responsible for the criminalisation of politics. The shrewd and self-interest-seeking politicians —in collaboration with corrupt civil servants — adopt various types of unfair means to satisfy their greediness and ill-motives. The Indian society is in transition. From various sources the government of India is getting funds for development.

The government also spends huge amount of money through Five Year Plans. A large amount of money is laundered by politician and bureaucrats. There is a close alliance between the two and this has led to the worst type of criminalisation of politics.

We again remember Plato. He thought that for an ideal state the citizens must be deal and tor that purpose he thought establishing values, morality and idealism in the society. We have forgotten Plato and also the importance of values morality, ethics etc. This has downgraded the importance of moral values, ethics honesty etc.

People generally think of immediate pecuniary gains and give top priority to all these. We, therefore, think that decline of general values has led to the criminalisation of politics. The ghost of Machiavelli has returned. But people have forgot that Machiavelli’s suggestion was made in the background of the pitiable condition of Italy.

In the election of 2005 investigation about the criminal activities of candidates contesting- the election was made and the survey reveals the following figures:

Many political parties of India fielded candidates who had criminal cases against them. Some of these candidates also won in elections. Two points may be made here. One is—the parties fielded the candidates who had criminal background. It means that the parties do not give due importance to this black spot.

The simple implication is that the criminal activities of candidates are not important. The other is that the voters have helped these candidates to win. While exercising franchise it is the duty of the voters to take information about the candidates. We, therefore, conclude that both voters and parties are equally responsible for the criminalisation of politics.

Corruption and crime both have engulfed our MPs. They raise questions in parliament in exchange of money. A few years ago our parliament was in storm on this issue.

Here a part of a newspaper reporting:

“A TV sting operation caught 11 MPs. 6 MPs from BJP, 3 MPs from BSP, one RJD MP and one Congress MR All of them took bribe as ranging from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 1,10,000 for raising question in parliament. The law-makers were taking paltry amount to subvert the country’s highest democratic institution. The MPs asked questions in Parliament for cash” — Times of India, Kolkata edition, 13.12.2005.

It is a disgrace on the part of the members of the highest democratic institution of our country. This is really a disgrace on the part of the members of parliament. These MPs are law-makers and these laws are implemented to make society crime-free. But the law-makers are themselves parts of criminal activities.

Indian bureaucracy is also highly corrupted. From, the reports published in newspapers we come to know that the top bureaucrats build up fortune of crores of rupees within the first few years of their service. From various sources they get money. The businessmen give bribe to get out-of-the-way benefit. Ordinary people also give bribe to the officers to get quick service. Behind all sorts of corruption there is politics. We can say politics has criminalised everything and the administration tops the list. When both politics and administration are corrupt nothing can remain outside it.

Recent Development in Criminalisation of Politics :

Persons can’t fight from Jail :

The apex court of India in a judgment on July 11, 2013 declared that persons in jail or police custody cannot contest elections to legislative bodies. The order was passed by the Supreme Court along with the landmark verdict that MPs, MLAs and MLCs would be disqualified the day they were convicted. This double whammy against the criminals in Indian legislatures is expected to go a long way in cleaning up politics.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices A. K. Patnayak and S. j. Mukhopadhyaya ruled only an elector can contest the polls and he/she forfeits the right to vote during imprisonment or in police custody. The court based its order on provisions of the Representation of People’s Act. Sections 4 and 5 of the Act lay down that in order to be elected to parliament or state legislatures one must be an elector.

The bench also referred to Section 62(5) of the Act. which says no person shall vote at any election if he is confined in a prison whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation or otherwise or in a lawful custody of the police. The apex court also took notice of the fact that crimes in politic have risen from 128 to 162 between 2004 and 2009.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (10.07.13) struck down a provision in the electoral law that protects the convicted law-maker from disqualification on the ground of pendency of appeal in the higher courts. The highest court also made it clear that MPs, MLAs and MLCs will stand disqualified on the date of conviction. The Court said parliament had exceeded its powers by enacting the provision Section 8(4) of the Representation of People’s Act that gives a convicted law-maker the power to remain in office on the ground that appeals have been filed and decision is pending. But the bench of Justices A. K Patnaik and S.J. Mukhopadhayay, in its 41 page ruling, clarified that convicted law-makers, whose appeals were pending prior to their verdict, were saved as it would come into effect prospectively.

The following figures show the miserable condition of criminalisation of politics in India. The two NGOs have collected information. They are Association for Democratic Rights (ADR) and National Election Watch (NEW). Our Lok Sabha has 543 members out of this 30% or 162 members have criminal cases against them. 14% members of the Lok Sabha have serious criminal cases against them. The total number of all state Legislatures in 4032. Out of this 1258 members have criminal cases against them. It is 31% of the total number.

Again 14% have serious criminal cases against them. The 2009 Lok Sabha had 450 tainted faces out of 543 members. These figures show beyond any shadow of doubt that large numbers of our law-makers have tainted faces. These tainted law-makers are engaged in making law to make society free from corruption and all sorts of criminal activities.

The study of ADR and NEW also shows that almost all the national parties are indirectly encouraging or supporting criminal activities of their members or law-makers. Behind this both money and muscle power is directly involved According to ADR and National Election watch (NEW) the criminal activities of the members of national parties are really beyond imagination. More pathetic condition is the national and regional parties are absolutely indifferent. Not only members of the legislatures are tainted, the ministers fall in the same category. The Chief Minister of constituent state is convicted on the ground of embezzlement of public money and other charges.

The judgment of the Supreme Court has thrown both national and regional parties into bewilderment. Behind the criminalisation of politics there are muscle power and money power and these two powers are primarily responsible for all sorts of criminal activities of politicians. If the judgment of the highest Court is implemented most of the parties will face severe crisis-crisis of existence.

The purpose of the Supreme court is to free Indian politics from crimes and the recent judgment aims at this. The Election Commission for pretty long time has been demanding the amendment of Representation of People’s Act. After the judgment of the Supreme court the stand of the Election Commission will be strengthened.

Regulatory Commission:

The Independent Regulatory Commission is an important weapon at the hands of the administration to control the economic and other activities of the various service providers. The system of constituting Independent Regulatory Commis­sion was first introduced in USA. The chief aim was to control the private enterprises which provide all sorts of public utility services.

The private organisations also control major parts and aspects of both state and federal administration. In fact in USA, the federal government plays minimum role in administrative system and in providing various services. Because of this the American government felt the necessity of regulating the activities of the private organisations that provide services. In India there are also Independent Regula­tory Commissions. In recent years the necessity of setting up of such commissions has increased several times.

The reasons are:

(1) Since India is a welfare and socialism-biased state its role in providing various types of services for the general welfare of people has enormously increased. On proper and regular investigation it has been found that there is a gap between the aims of service providers and the persons getting services. It means that the aims of the authority which provides service remain unful­filled-at least substantially. This is undesirable. In order to locate the faults and the responsibility of persons or authority the necessity of setting up of regulatory commission was felt.

(2) Indian administrative system more or less belongs to the Open Model of public administration because outside factors are influencing administration and policy-making activities of the government. It is unavoidable. How the outside influences or openness of environment are regulating the manner of people is to be ascertained.

The authority must know how the outside influences are creating problems or crises for the people. For that purpose the setting up of regulatory commission was felt. India as a part of the world system cannot stay outside It. Naturally outside forces must influence India’s economy, politics, social system and administration. The regulatory commission will enable the state authority to have a clear knowledge of the prevailing situation.

(3) In the economic system of India the private economy and enterprise have crucial and important role. In India there is a system of private property. It is the duty of administration-both central and state-to see that the private economy and private property system are working and if they are adversely affecting the interests of the citizens. Particularly for the purpose the necessity of regulatory commission has been felt.

(4) The industrialisation, urbanisation and at the same time, the unprec­edented growth of social mobility very often create problems for ordinary citizens and sometimes make them helpless. These also create problems for administra­tion. It is the duty of a responsible government, with the aim of ensuring welfare, to see that the citizens are not deprived of their legitimate due and other privileges. This has led to the setting up of regulatory commissions.

(5) In USA the regulatory commission is a normal feature of public admin­istration. There is a market economy. The economic issues are determined by the market forces. On experience it has been found that this may invite onslaught on the basic interests of citizens. As it happened during the Great Depression of 1930s.

The government was forced to interfere with the market forces. In India the national economy and property system are considerably regulated by the acts and laws of the central government. In spite of this there is ample scope of private economy to act independently. In this situation there has arisen the necessity of regulatory commission and the administrative system of India has done that job.

(6) One important feature of market economy is that the profit motive of the entrepreneurs is extremely active and this motive neglects the interests of the consumers. Naturally it is expected that the government must have enough control over the activities of private enterprises. If this does not happen the basic interests of the ordinary citizens will be affected.

(7) The developmental process of India is in transition. Many people call India a prismatic society. Social and economic situations are rapidly changing. A major part of the population is vulnerable to all these vicissitudes. Since the citizens are not capable to fight this situation a regulatory system is badly needed. Moreover, the self-interest-seeking persons may exploit the situation. And, gener­ally, this happens. For this reason it is the duty of the government to have precautionary measures so that the life, liberty and property of citizens remain safe.

(8) Finally, with the rise of industrial development and general progress of society, the citizens will face more and more problems and the scope of insecurity will be on the rise. A responsible government with people’s mandate to govern cannot remain a helpless out-looker when the citizens are facing problems.

Related Articles:

• Politics: Short Speech on Politics
• Relationship between Political Science and Politics

Comments are closed.

• Law of torts – Complete Reading Material
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – September 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 5 October 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 2 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 3 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 4 – November 2019
• Weekly Competition – Week 1 – December 2019
• Sign in / Join

The criminalisation of politics and how to prevent it?

his article is written by Vanya Verma pursuing B.B.A. LL.B (Hons.) from the Alliance University, Bangalore. This article deals with what is the criminalisation of politics, the committee formed for this, and how to curb criminalisation of politics.

Table of Contents

Introduction

The criminalisation of politics means the participation of criminals in politics which includes that criminals can contest in the elections and get elected as members of the Parliament and the State legislature. It takes place primarily due to the nexus between politicians and criminals.

Our election system is in a dire need of systematic and strategic improvements. The criminalisation of our political system has unanimously been observed by almost all recent committees on politics and electoral reform. 

There are many forms of criminalisation of politics, the one that is most alarming among them is a significant number of elected representatives with pending criminal charges against them. The criminalisation of politics involves intimidation of voters, booth capturing, the proliferation of non-serious candidates, tampered electoral rolls, and other polling irregularities.

Criminalisation of Politics

• Began in the late 1970s;
• There was no law to bar criminal candidates;
• Alarming in the criminalisation of politics has increased in the last 4 general elections.

The Vohra Committee on “Criminalisation of Politics”

The Vohra Committee on “Criminalisation of Politics” was constituted with an objective to identify the extent of the political-criminal nexus and to recommend ways in which the criminalisation of politics can be effectively dealt with. Official agencies in the report made several observations on the criminal network which had virtually been running a parallel government. The Report of the Vohra Committee also discussed how the criminal gangs enjoyed the support of politicians and protection they were being provided from the government functionaries. The report revealed how political leaders have become gang leaders. Over the years criminals have been elected to Parliament, State Assemblies, and local bodies. 

The Supreme Court in Shri Dinesh Trivedi, M.P. & Ors v. Union Of India & Ors, 1997 recommended for the appointment of a high-level committee for ensuring an in-depth investigation of the findings of the N N Vohra Committee and to secure the prosecution of those involved and said: “to take urgent stock of all available information about the activities and links of all…(Customs, Revenue, Intelligence, etc.) to gather the required information”. 

It was discussed in the report, how the money power is, in essence, being utilized to develop the muscle-power network which the politicians use during elections. The Vohra Committee ended with regurgitating the fact that there is an essential need to set up intelligence agencies to deal with the problem of the criminalization of politics in order to curb the same.

The present laws for candidates involved in the criminalisation of politics

It is stated in the Section 4A of the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 that an affidavit must be filed by each candidate. The affidavit should consist of:

• If in any case the candidate has been accused of an offence that is punishable with two or more imprisonment, in any pending case in which the charges have been framed by the court.
• The cases where a conviction for an offence is involved other than an offence that has been mentioned under Section 8, Representation of the People Act, 1951 , (The R.P. Act, 1951) and sentenced with imprisonment for one year or more.

Pursuant to the order of the Supreme Court, in addition to this, on 27 March 2003, the Election Commission issued an order that an additional affidavit must be filed by the candidates stating that Section 125A of the R.P. Act which prescribes penalties for providing incorrect or withholding information on Form 26, this amounts to a maximum of six months imprisonment, or fine, or both. 

The Election Commission of India in the report entitled Proposed Electoral Reforms, 2004 noted that “in few cases, the candidates leave some of the columns blanks, there have been cases where the candidates are contended to have given grossly undervalued information.”

Recommendations made by the report on Proposed Election Reforms, 2004

The recommendations were made by the Election Commission of India in its report on the Proposed Election Reforms, 2004, that:

• Section 125A of the R.P. The Act should be amended, in order to provide more stringent punishment for concealing or providing wrong information in Form 26 under The Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 to a minimum term of two years imprisonment and the alternative punishment of assessing a fine upon the candidate should be removed. 
• It was also recommended to amend Form 26 to include all items of the additional affidavit, that was prescribed by the Election Commission as well as to add a column where the candidates should disclose their annual income for the purpose of tax including their profession. 
• The most important recommendation was to make an amendment in The R.P. Act, 1951, to insert a new section that should make a declaration of assets and the criminal cases that are pending against the candidate, this should be made necessary as part of the qualification for membership to the House of the People.

The R.P. Act 1951 must be expanded in its scope in order to deter the politicians from having a criminal background and the ones who have committed heinous crimes. In case a candidate has charges framed against him under Section 8 with regards to offences and otherwise, he should be disqualified for a duration of six years. 

However, mere disqualification for a certain period of time cannot be the final cure under any circumstance. In order to set aside the lacunae, it is only possible if the de-criminalisation of politics takes place. Candidates should be disqualified if they violate this provision and the political parties who with the knowledge of their antecedents should be derecognized and deregistered. On this matter, many committees made an important submission that any person who is convicted for heinous crimes such as murder, rape, dacoity, smuggling, etc. should be disbarred permanently from contesting in the elections.

There is an inherent need to supersede the existing judicial hierarchy and establish fast-track courts to accomplish this purpose. This encompasses a quick trial within six months from the time charges are framed so as to determine whether or not a candidate is qualified to hold office and applies to the post vide public elections.

Negative Voting

Earlier there was no concept of negative voting. The voters going to cast their votes had to choose one candidate from the ballot paper or on an electronic voting machine. The Election Commission of India and the Law Commission of India have the institution of the neutral or negative voting system. This system gives a choice to the voter to choose none of the candidates on the ballot by selecting “None Of The Above” (NOTA). There could be a democratic safeguard with the institution of such a system. If there are sufficient and proportional negative votes it can render the current election to be null and void and there are chances that re-election would consequently be taken up.

The negative voting was also essential as if there would be plenty of negative votes against a single candidate, it would let the party know that their candidates are not strong enough to contest the election, the political party should bring up a strong candidate that is favoured by the voters.

The SC Judgement

The Supreme Court bench of justices R.F. Nariman and S. Ravindra Bhat on 13th February 2020 ordered the political parties to publish criminal antecedents of their candidates for the Legislative Assembly and Lok Sabha elections.

The order said that a detailed reason within 48 hours of the selection of the candidates should be published by the parties as to what made them choose the candidates having criminal records over other candidates.

Information to be disclosed

• The crime that the candidate is accused of;
• How many cases and what kind of cases are charged against the candidate?;
• Details of the case, case number and name of Court;
• At which stage the criminal case has reached – FIR or investigation or charge-sheet or trial;
• Why can’t the other individuals without any criminal antecedents can not be selected as candidates?

“Winnability” cannot be the only reason for the selection of the candidate.

The information must be uploaded on

• social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter.
• one national newspaper.
• website of the party.
• one local vernacular newspaper.

As of today, the political parties do not offer any explanation as to why the people with pending criminal cases are selected as candidates for contesting elections when they have a choice.

Contempt of Court

• A report of compliance shall be submitted by the concerned political party in compliance with the directions to the election commission within 72hrs of the said candidate.
• If there is a failure on the part of the political party to submit this compliance report, then the Election Commission shall report such non-compliance by the concerned political party to the Supreme Court as being contempt of the Court order.

Enforcement of decrees and orders and Contempt of Supreme Court is dealt under Article 129 and Article 142 of The Constitution of India, 1949 .

The case of Court contempt will be filed against the party president.

September 2018 verdict

Recently on contempt plea orders were passed by the Supreme Court that had put forward the issue of criminalisation of politics, it was claimed that September 2018 verdict of the court was not being followed in this verdict the Supreme Court gave directions that were given by a constitutional bench comprising of 5 judges, which was related to the disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates.

In 2018 verdict the directives were issued by the Apex Court to ensure that-

• The voters have knowledge about the antecedents of the candidates.
• The details related to the pending criminal cases against the candidate have to be uploaded by the political party on their website.
• Such information must be provided by the candidates in their election affidavit and also publish the same in a “widely circulated newspaper”.

Aren’t the criminals banned from contesting elections already?

• Section 8 of the R.P. ACT provides that an individual punished with imprisonment for more than 2 years cannot stand in an election for 6 years after the jail term has ended.
• But the candidates facing trial, no matter how serious the charges are, are not restricted from contesting elections.
• The fact that the cases are dragged for years in the courts makes this provision virtually ineffective.

It was pointed out in the 2014 report of the law commission that “disqualification upon the conviction has not proved to be capable of curbing the growth in the criminalisation of politics, owing to rare conviction and long delays in trials”.

• The Representation of The People Act does not restrict the individuals from contesting elections who have criminal cases pending against them.
• A 2014 report of the law commission pointed out that the disqualification upon conviction has proved not to be capable of curbing the growing criminalisation of politics.

In 2018 an affidavit submitted by the centre to the Supreme Court also confirms the shortcoming of Representation of People Act’s disqualification clause. The affidavit says that there are more than 3800 criminal cases against 1765 MP’s and MLA’s across the country, of which 3045 cases are pending.

The percentage of members of the parliament who faced criminal cases pending against them

Supreme Court judgement- “It is time to confirm that the laws are made by the parliament to prohibit the people from entering into the political stream, who are facing serious criminal charges. It is one thing that the accused van take cover under the presumption of innocence, but it is equally essential that the people who are participating in the law-making and entering into public life should not be indulged in any sort of serious criminal allegation. It is true that sometimes false cases are imposed on the forthcoming candidates, but the same through appropriate legislation can be addressed by the Parliament. The nation waits eagerly for such legislation, as the society expects to be governed by proper constitutional governance. The voters demand systematic sustenance of constitutionalism.”

Causes of Criminalisation of Politics

One of the most important reasons for the criminalisation of politics is the nexus between the politicians and bureaucracy. Even factors like caste and religion are equally responsible for this. It is seen in many states in India that a minister of a particular caste or religion will be favourable towards the members of his own caste or religion. The quota system is equally responsible for this criminalisation.

Reasons for the criminalisation of politics:

Individuals and political parties do astronomical expenditure for buying the votes and for other illegitimate purposes. The politician’s link with the constituency gives rise to political crime.

Corruption is also an important factor in the criminalisation of politics. The corrupted political member uses his powers for winning the elections not in a fair manner.

Lack of Governance

The origin of the problem of the criminalisation of politics is mainly the country’s poor governance capacity. On one hand, excessive procedures are used by India to allow the bureaucracy to insert into the ordinary life of people while on the other hand, it appears that it is woefully understaffed to perform its most crucial functions.

Other reasons for criminalization of politics include

• A partisan interfering in the investigation of crime and poor prosecution of cases.
• Massive delays of cases of criminal candidates over the years and high cost that is involved in the judicial proceedings.
• Unwarranted granting of parole and abundance withdrawal of the court cases.

These reasons have also been equally responsible for spurring criminalisation in politics.

Suggested measure to curb criminalisation of politics

• The Political parties should themselves refuse tickets to the tainted candidates.
• There should be an amendment in the RP Act to debar the persons from contesting elections against whom crimes of heinous nature are pending.
• Fast-track courts should deal with the cases of politicians with criminal records. Fast-track courts are necessary because the politicians have the power to keep on delaying the judicial proceedings and serve for decades before any prosecution takes place. If there is a speedy trial of politicians who have criminal records, they might not be able to contest elections.
• Intra-party democracy and accountability should be promoted by the Constitution.
• Persons who have been punished with a jail term of more than 7 years should not be given a right to contest elections before the High Court grants permission.
• Awareness should be created about NOTA (none of the above) and such other options to prevent the criminals from winning elections.

Other suggested measures

• Greater transparency should be brought in campaign financing that will make it less desirable for the political parties to comprise the candidates pertaining to criminal background.
• The penalty should be inflicted on the political parties who give tickets to the criminals to contest in elections.
• The appointment of Election Commissioners should be in a fair and transparent manner.
• The Election Commission of India (ECI) should be given the power of auditing the financial accounts of the political parties or the finance of the political parties must be brought to the Right to Information (RTI) law.
• Broader governance should be improved for voters in order to make them aware if there is any criminal background of the candidate. 
• To modify the existing laws legal changes should be made and to prevent the criminals from contesting in elections. The criminals should be blacklisted and disciplinary actions must be taken against them.
• Adequate measures must be taken by the Election Commission in order to break the link between the criminals and politicians.

The forms that have been prescribed by the Election Commission for the candidates to disclose their convictions and their cases pending in courts in their nomination papers is also a step in the right direction if applied properly.

The criminalisation of politics and corruption hits the roots of democracy. There should be wide publicity of the candidates with criminal records, who are contesting in an election and the political parties that give them support. The publication must be such that it is easily available to the voters, that is not on the party’s official website as each and every voter won’t check the profile of each candidate and some might not even have access to or knowledge about this electronic means. This is important in order to curb criminalisation of politics.

• http://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-988-criminalization-of-politics-in-india.html
• https://www.careerlauncher.com/blogs/criminalisation-of-politics-an-overview/

LawSikho has created a telegram group for exchanging legal knowledge, referrals and various opportunities. You can click on this link and join:

https://t.me/joinchat/J_0YrBa4IBSHdpuTfQO_sA

Follow us on  Instagram  and subscribe to our  YouTube  channel for more amazing legal content.

RELATED ARTICLES MORE FROM AUTHOR

State of karnataka vs. m/s. drive-in enterprises (2001), arvind @ abasaheb ganesh kulkarni vs. anna @ dhanpal parisa chougule (1980), state of punjab vs. major singh (1966), leave a reply cancel reply.

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

3-Day Bootcamp on (LIVE only)

How to kickstart your international IP law career today

Register now

Thank you for registering with us, you made the right choice.

Congratulations! You have successfully registered for the webinar. See you there.

The theory and politics of criminalisation

John Muncie argues that a critical understanding of criminalisation remains crucial

The Daily Telegraph (18 April 2008) recently ran with the headline ‘Teenage drinkers could be criminalised’. In 2007 the Chair of the Youth Justice Board resigned primarily in frustration that ‘we are criminalising more and more children and young people’ for relatively minor offences in order to meet a Home Office target of increasing the number of ‘offences brought to justice’ ( Independent on Sunday  16 September 2007). In the wake of successive anti-terrorist legislation since 2000, the organisation CAMPACC (Campaign Against Criminalising Communities) was specifically formed in order to oppose the criminalisation of association with political organisations and to protect the civil liberties of those communities considered to be a ‘threat’ to public safety.

In each of these cases a concept of criminalisation is employed to draw attention to the way in which ‘new criminals’ can be ‘created’ through police targeting and criminal justice law reform. In the throes of a government that has legislated in this area more in the past decade than in the whole of the previous century, the idea of criminalisation has begun to take a firmer hold in some sections of the popular, media, and political imagination. Of note have been attempts to ‘criminalise conduct’ through hate crime and anti-social behaviour legislation. Recognition of processes of criminalisation is, however, far from new. In the nineteenth century the penal reformer, Bentham, for example, argued that certain social reactions to crime—the unreformed prison, for example—were more likely to promote offending than curtail it. Mayhew, the social commentator, considered that overzealous policing was a significant factor in the creation of juvenile delinquency in the mid nineteenth century. Such themes are now reflected in the perennial claims that prisons are ‘colleges of crime’ and that the more people are treated as different, deviant, or criminal, the more likely they are to act out those roles in the future (for example, in the way ASBOs are considered not to deter but to be ‘badges of honour’).

Interaction, social reaction and labelling

The concept of criminalisation, however, has a deeper and more precise theoretical legacy. Formative traces can be found in an interactionist school of sociology of the 1930s. Tannenbaum (1938), for example, argued that deviance, rather than being a self-evident behavioural entity, could only be created through a process of social interaction. While a majority commit deviant acts, only a minority come to be known as deviant. The known deviant is then targeted, identified, defined, and treated as such, even though their behaviour may be no different to those who have not been so identified. As a result, certain people ‘become deviant’ through the imposition of social judgments on their behaviour: they become the essence of what is being complained of. This approach underlined the importance of viewing rules and regulations, not as consensual ‘givens’, but as sites of negotiation and dispute. In the 1950s Lemert (1951) further developed this approach by distinguishing between primary and secondary deviation. He argued that primary deviance is often a temporary transgression in which perpetrators have no conception of themselves as deviant. Secondary deviance is created through the reaction of others to the initial deviance. Through namecalling, stereotyping and labelling, a deviant identity is established and confirmed. Often deviants resolve this personal crisis by accepting their deviant status and by reorganising their lives accordingly. They become more susceptible to criminalisation. In these ways the rigid separation of what constitutes the deviant and the conformist; the criminal and noncriminal was called into question.

‘Deviance is not a property inherent in certain forms of behaviour; it is a property conferred upon these forms by the audiences which directly or indirectly witness them. Sociologically, then, the critical variable in the study of deviance is the social audience, rather than the individual person … ’ Kai T. Erikson (1962) Notes on the Sociology of Deviance .

The concept of criminalisation eventually found its feet in the formulation of social reaction theory and labelling in the 1960s. For the American sociologist Becker, the key to understanding the origins of deviance lay in the reactions of a social audience, rather than in the behaviour of individual actors themselves. Deviance was no longer viewed simply as a pathological act that violated consensual norms, but as something created through microlevel interactions between rule violator and rule enforcer. This process ensures that some people who commit deviant acts come to be known as deviants, whereas others do not. A number of ethnographic studies were also published in the 1960s and 1970s which revealed the processes of becoming a marijuana smoker, a prostitute, a homosexual, a prisoner and so on. In each it was the stigma attached to the label that was considered pivotal in informing future behaviour patterns. Becker (1963) argued that when defined as ‘outsiders’, it is such groups that come to epitomise what is considered to be criminal. A selffulfilling prophecy ensues. Criminality is continually sought only in those identified as criminal. And the power of the label of ‘criminal’ ensures that ‘criminal careers’ are exacerbated. This refocusing of criminology dramatically shifted attention from the behaviours of those commonly thought to constitute a problem for society to those who conceive those behaviours as problems. Lemert's (1967) conclusion that social control causes deviancy was a crucial turning point in the politicisation of the sociology of deviance. For many, social reaction and labelling effectively began the process of politicising the study of deviance, crime and social control.

‘Deviance may be conceived as a process by which the members of a group, community, or society (1) interpret behavior as deviant, (2) define persons who so behave as a certain kind of deviant and (3) accord them the treatment considered appropriate to such deviants’. John Kitsuse (1962) Societal Reaction to Deviant Behavior.

Critical imagination

Social reaction and labelling clearly opened up new lines of critical enquiry by posing definitional rather than behavioural questions—‘who defines another as deviant?’; ‘why are some behaviours and not others defined as deviant?’; ‘who has the power to define another as deviant?’; and ‘how are deviant roles subsequently adopted and played out?’ To address such questions it was necessary not only to begin to study how rules and laws were created, but to ask in whose interests they were enforced. Attention was drawn to the complex process by which moral entrepreneurs and agencies of social and crime control are able to realise the public identification of certain people as criminal; how social reaction and labelling produce and reproduce a recognisable criminal population. This ‘politicisation of criminology’ was indeed a logical extension of the critical questioning of social science and its role in research, teaching and policy making that had emerged at the time. Political developments growing out of the American civil rights campaigns, anti-Vietnam war movements and the radicalisation of student and countercultures had a direct impact on many academic disciplines and their role in defending the status quo. C. Wright Mills challenged the whole notion of scientific neutrality in academic research and Becker himself latterly brought such questioning directly into criminology by asking social scientists: ‘Whose side are you on?’ Mainstream criminology was charged with lending the state a spurious legitimacy and functioning as little more than a justification for oppressive power. This was the beginning of a critical criminological imagination in which questions of political and social control took precedence over behavioural and correctional issues. Central was an expose of the ‘power to criminalise’ through the systematic and consistent empowerment of some groups and the criminalisation of others.

‘Deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an ‘offender’. The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label’ Howard Becker (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance.

Today the classic statements of social reaction and labelling are widely employed in most undergraduate sociological criminology courses. Yet 40 years ago they marked a radical departure in criminological (or rather more typically then ‘sociology of deviance’) studies. By drawing attention to the role of social reaction (and law enforcement in particular) they warn of the ways in which criminal justice may cause that which it is designed to curtail. A critical understanding of criminalisation remains crucial in radicalising a discipline that in many of its guises simply seems to be content with being an adjunct of, and in collusion with, state agencies. Social reaction and labelling marked the first step in understanding why and how only certain troubling behaviours and acts are subject to criminalisation and why a host of other more serious social harms (such as workplace death and injury; illegal arms dealings; corporate frauds, state sponsored torture and so on) appear to be routinely practised with impunity or rarely considered as core elements of the ‘crime problem’. These insights still retain their original power to challenge the politics of law and order and expose the processes of selective criminalisation. Perhaps for this reason they remain routinely ignored or dismissed by those of a more conservative, technocratic or administrative persuasion.

‘This is a large turn away from older sociology which tended to rest heavily upon the idea that deviance leads to social control. I have come to believe that the reverse idea, ie., social control leads to deviance, is equally tenable and the potentially richer premise for studying deviance in modern society’ Edwin Lemert (1967) Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control.

John Muncie is Professor of Criminology at the Open University

Becker, H. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance , New York: Free Press.

Erikson, K. T. (1962) ‘Notes on the sociology of deviance’. Social Problems, 9: 307–314.

Kitsuse, J. (1962) ‘Societal reaction to deviant behaviour’. Social Problems , 9: 247–56.

Lemert, E. (1951) Social Pathology, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Lemert, E. (1967) Human Deviance, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Social Problems and Social Control.

Tannenbaum, F. (1938) Crime and the Community, New York: Colombia University Press.

Criminalization of Politics, Meaning, Causes, Effects and Consequences

Criminalization of Politics implies the increasing involvement of criminals and individuals with criminal charges in Indian politics. Criminalization of Politics for UPSC Exam.

Table of Contents

Criminalization of Politics

Criminalization of Politics is an important topic for UPSC exams, especially in the context of Indian politics. Here are some key points that you can include in your UPSC notes regarding the criminalization of politics. Criminalization of politics refers to the increasing involvement of individuals with criminal backgrounds or charges in the political process, including running for political office or holding positions of power within political parties.

The Criminalization of Politics is an important part of Indian Polity which is an important subject in UPSC Syllabus . Students can also go for UPSC Mock Test to get more accuracy in their preparations.

Criminalization of Politics Meaning

Politics in India is becoming more and more criminalized, which suggests a rise in the number of criminals and those facing criminal accusations. Additionally, this phrase refers to those with criminal histories who go on to become elected officials and delegates.

A person who has served a sentence of more than two years in prison is also ineligible to run for office until six years have passed since their release, according to Section 8 of the Indian Representative of People Act. However, this clause is ineffective in real life because of the ongoing criminalization of politics in India.

Criminalization of Politics Causes

Several laws and court rulings haven’t really helped because they aren’t being enforced.  The disclosure of a candidate’s whole criminal background by a political party may not be very successful because many voters choose to cast their ballots based only on caste or religious considerations. In large part because of their capacity to finance their own elections and contribute significant resources to their respective parties, candidates with serious records appear to perform well despite their public perception. In some cases, voters are also without choices because every candidate running for office has a criminal background.

Criminalization of Politics Effects

Criminalizing politics reduces the number of viable candidates that people can choose from. It goes against the democratic ideal of free and fair elections, which is its cornerstone.  The main issue is that lawbreakers end up making the laws, which undermines the democratic process’ ability to provide effective government. These unwholesome democratic tendencies portray an unfavorable picture of the state institutions of India and the caliber of its elected officials.

Additionally, it causes a rise in the flow of illicit funds both before and after elections, which worsens social corruption and impairs the performance of public employees. It fosters a culture of violence in society, creates a poor example for young people to follow, and erodes public confidence in democracy as a form of government.

Criminalization of Politics Consequences

The quality of India’s democracy is negatively impacted by the presence of people with criminal histories in the country’s politics and legal system. Due to extensive ties to the illegal underworld, huge sums of illegal money are funnelled into the political process.

The criminalization of politics has the consequence of limiting the legal process and increasing trial uncertainty. Criminals entering Indian politics increase crime in daily life. The executive, bureaucracy, legislature, and judiciary are among the state institutions that are badly impacted. Politics being made illegal displays a violent culture in the neighbourhood and is an example of young people.

Criminalization of Politics Measures to Curb

It is necessary to change Section 125A of the Representation of Peoples Act to increase the minimum sentence for falsifying or omitting information in Form 26 in accordance with the Conduct of Election Rules, 1961 to a minimum of two years in prison. All individuals with ongoing criminal charges that are punishable by a term of more than five years will be disqualified with the retroactive application, subject to appropriate safeguards.

According to section 125A, submitting a false affidavit carries a two-year sentence. Disqualification should be made possible in the event of a conviction under this. Providing that charges be filed six months prior to the election, the 2nd Administrative Reforms Commission suggested amending Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 to bar candidates who are accused of severe crimes or corruption from running. Making campaign finance more transparent will make it less appealing for political parties to work with gangsters.

Criminalization of Politics Initiatives and Reforms

Strengthening existing laws related to the criminalization of politics, expediting the resolution of criminal cases against politicians, and ensuring stricter eligibility criteria for candidates. Electoral reform like Encouraging inner-party democracy, transparent candidate selection processes, and stringent mechanisms to prevent the nomination of candidates with criminal backgrounds is needed. Promoting citizen engagement and voter education, encouraging voters to make informed choices and support clean and ethical candidates.

Criminalization of Politics and Role of the Judiciary

Highlight the significant role played by the Supreme Court in addressing the issue of criminalization in politics, including directives such as the disclosure of criminal records, barring individuals with criminal charges from contesting elections, and decriminalization efforts.

Criminalization of Politics UPSC

The criminalization of politics poses a grave threat to democracy and governance in India. It requires a multi-faceted approach involving legal reforms, electoral reforms, and increased public awareness to effectively address this menace. As UPSC aspirants, it is essential to understand and analyze this issue from various perspectives to contribute to the creation of a cleaner and more accountable political system. Students can read all the details related to UPSC by visiting the official website of StudyIQ UPSC Online Coaching.

Sharing is caring!

Criminalization of Politics FAQs

What is criminalization of politics.

The criminalization of politics means the participation of criminals in politics which includes that criminals can contest in the elections and get elected as members of the Parliament and the State legislature.

What are the effects of criminalization in politics?

Sometimes political parties give candidature to people having a criminal background, facing criminal allegations and allegations of corruption. This increases the role of money and muscle power in politics.

What are the statistics of criminalization of politics?

In the year 2009, 30% of MPs in Lok Sabha were against criminal charges. In 2014, 34% of MPs in the Lok Sabha faced criminal charges. The percentage was extremely high in the last Lok Sabha elections.

What is criminalisation of politics?

"Criminalization of politics" is a political buzzword in the United States used in the media, by commentators, bloggers as well as by defenders of high-ranking government officials who have been indicted or have faced criminal or ethical investigations.

What is the cause of criminalization of politics?

The most significant cause of the criminalisation of politics is the profane relationship between bureaucracy and politicians. This unwanted and destructive connection between bureaucracy and political managers increased the scope of the criminalisation of politics.

• indian polity

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Recent Posts

• UPSC Online Coaching
• UPSC Exam 2024
• UPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Mains Syllabus 2024
• UPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPSC Age Limit 2024
• UPSC Calendar 2024
• UPSC Syllabus in Hindi
• UPSC Full Form
• UPPSC Exam 2024
• UPPSC Calendar
• UPPSC Syllabus 2024
• UPPSC Exam Pattern 2024
• UPPSC Application Form 2024
• UPPSC Eligibility Criteria 2024
• UPPSC Admit card 2024
• UPPSC Salary And Posts
• UPPSC Cut Off
• UPPSC Previous Year Paper

BPSC Exam 2024

• BPSC 70th Notification
• BPSC 69th Exam Analysis
• BPSC Admit Card
• BPSC Syllabus
• BPSC Exam Pattern
• BPSC Cut Off
• BPSC Question Papers
• MPPSC Prelims Question Paper 2024
• MPPSC Answer Key 2024
• MPPSC Exam Date 2024
• MPPSC Syllabus 2024

SSC CGL 2024

• SSC CGL Exam 2024
• SSC CGL Syllabus 2024
• SSC CGL Cut off
• SSC CGL Apply Online
• SSC CGL Salary
• SSC MTS 2024
• SSC MTS Syllabus 2024
• SSC MTS Salary 2024
• SSC MTS Previous Year Paper

Study Material Categories

• Daily The Hindu Analysis
• Daily Practice Quiz for Prelims
• Daily Answer Writing
• Daily Current Affairs
• Indian Polity
• Environment and Ecology
• Art and Culture
• General Knowledge
• Biographies

IMPORTANT EXAMS

• Terms & Conditions
• Return & Refund Policy
• Privacy Policy

Criminalization of Politics | UPSC Mains Essay Preparation PDF Download

To write an effective UPSC essay on "Criminalization of Politics," it is crucial to structure it with a clear introduction, body, and conclusion. Here is a proposed structure for the essay,  followed by the essay itself:

Introduction

• Start with a quote or phrase to set the tone.
• Briefly define criminalization of politics.
• Introduce the current scenario or a recent case study (e.g., the ADR report on Karnataka's 2023 Assembly Elections).
• Discuss statistics and trends (e.g., ADR data, increase in criminal cases in Parliament).
• Analyze various factors contributing to this issue (Vote bank politics, corruption, vested interests, muscle and money power, poor governance).
• Discuss how it impacts democracy, governance, public service integrity, and social harmony.
• Overview of the legal framework (Representation of Peoples Act, Supreme Court Judgments).
• Discuss existing recommendations and initiatives against criminalization (Vohra Committee, Law Commission, Special Courts).
• Suggest reforms (More power to ECI, voter awareness, expeditious judicial processes, amending RPA).
• Reinforce the urgency of addressing criminalization in politics.
• End with a forward-looking statement or quote that reflects a positive attitude towards change.

Sample Essay

The following essay serves as a sample for the given topic. Students can add their own ideas and points as well.

"Democracy must be built  through open societies that share information. When there is information, there is enlightenment. When there is debate, there are solutions." -  Atifete Jahjaga

The dark shadow of criminalization has been looming over the Indian political landscape, challenging the very essence of our democratic fabric. This phenomenon, where individuals with criminal backgrounds participate in governance, has increasingly become a critical concern. A recent report by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) on the Karnataka 2023 Assembly Elections underscores this alarming trend, where the number of candidates with criminal cases has escalated across major political parties.

The Nature and Extent of Criminalization in Indian Politics

The ADR's statistics paint a grim picture: the proportion of parliamentarians with pending criminal cases has risen sharply from 24% in 2004 to 43% in 2019. A staggering 44% increase in MPs with declared criminal cases since 2009, including serious charges like rape and murder, signals a deep-rooted problem.

Causes of Criminalization

Several factors contribute to this malaise. The manipulation of vote banks through illegal means and the use of "goondas" for political gains reflect a disturbing confluence of crime and politics. Corruption plays a pivotal role, as electoral contests demand substantial financial resources, often sourced through unscrupulous means. The electorate's tendency to vote based on narrow community interests, overlooking candidates' criminal backgrounds, further exacerbates the issue. The muscle and money power used to instill fear and buy votes, coupled with poor governance and lax election laws, create a fertile ground for criminal elements to flourish in politics.

Implications of Criminalization

The consequences are far-reaching. The principle of free and fair elections, a cornerstone of democracy, is compromised. It hampers good governance, as law-breakers become law-makers, eroding the effectiveness of democratic processes. The proliferation of black money and corrupt practices undermines the integrity of public servants and erodes public trust in governance. Moreover, it breeds a culture of violence and sets a negative precedent for the youth, disrupting social harmony.

Legal and Judicial Responses

The legal framework, primarily the Representation of Peoples Act 1951, stipulates disqualification for certain offenses. However, it falls short of barring individuals with pending criminal cases. Supreme Court judgments have attempted to curb this trend. Landmark rulings like the Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002) and Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) have mandated disclosure of criminal and financial records and disqualified convicted MPs/MLAs. Despite these measures, the effectiveness in curbing criminalization remains questionable.

Solutions and Way Forward

Empowering the Election Commission of India (ECI) with more authority can be a significant step in mitigating this issue. Voter education and vigilance against electoral malpractices are imperative. Fast-tracking judicial processes and establishing special courts can expedite the resolution of criminal cases against politicians. Furthermore, amending the Representation of Peoples Act to disqualify candidates with serious criminal charges, even if pending, can act as a strong deterrent.

The criminalization of politics is not just a political issue but a societal one that demands urgent and collective action. As former President APJ Abdul Kalam aptly said, "If a country is to be corruption free and become a nation of beautiful minds, I strongly feel there are three key societal members who can make a difference. They are the father, the mother, and the teacher." Thus, it is the responsibility of every citizen, from the family unit to the highest echelons of power, to strive towards purging our political system of criminal elements, thereby safeguarding the sanctity of our democracy and ensuring a brighter future for India.

Top Courses for UPSC

FAQs on Criminalization of Politics - UPSC Mains Essay Preparation

How to Prepare for UPSC

Important questions, study material, previous year questions with solutions, practice quizzes, criminalization of politics | upsc mains essay preparation, shortcuts and tricks, semester notes, past year papers, mock tests for examination, viva questions, video lectures, extra questions, sample paper, objective type questions.

Criminalization of Politics Free PDF Download

Importance of criminalization of politics, criminalization of politics notes, criminalization of politics upsc questions, study criminalization of politics on the app.

Welcome Back

Create your account for free.

Forgot Password

Unattempted tests, change country, practice & revise.

• Website Inauguration Function.
• Vocational Placement Cell Inauguration
• Media Coverage.
• Certificate & Recommendations
• Privacy Policy
• Science Project Metric
• Social Studies 8 Class
• Computer Fundamentals
• Introduction to C++
• Programming Methodology
• Programming in C++
• Data structures
• Boolean Algebra
• Object Oriented Concepts
• Database Management Systems
• Open Source Software
• Operating System
• PHP Tutorials
• Earth Science
• Physical Science
• Sets & Functions
• Coordinate Geometry
• Mathematical Reasoning
• Statics and Probability
• Accountancy
• Business Studies
• Political Science
• English (Sr. Secondary)

Hindi (Sr. Secondary)

• Punjab (Sr. Secondary)
• Accountancy and Auditing
• Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Technology
• Automobile Technology
• Electrical Technology
• Electronics Technology
• Hotel Management and Catering Technology
• IT Application
• Marketing and Salesmanship
• Office Secretaryship
• Stenography
• Hindi Essays
• English Essays

Letter Writing

• Shorthand Dictation

Essay on “ Criminalisation of Politics ” Complete Essay for Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation and other classes.

Criminalisation of Politics 

 Essay No. 01

Criminalisation of politics is one of the serious problem affecting the democracy of our country. A large number of criminals are entering the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies. According to the Election Commission, about 700 MLAs and 40 MPs were involved in criminal cases. Out of the 13,952 candidates in the last elections, nearly 1,500 had cases of murder, dacoity, rape and extortion pending against them. It is a matter of serious concern that a large number of MPs and MLAs with criminal records are entering the law making bodies. How can a ‘law breaker’ become ‘law maker’?

India practices Parliamentary system of government with a territorial representation. There are various constituencies and whoever gets the highest votes in that particular constituency wins the seat and becomes MP or MLA. So the goal is just to get maximum number of votes by any means. There is no provision for securing more than 50% of votes. As a result all sorts of means, some fair and some unfair, are employed to secure the votes. Money and muscle power plays important role here to get to one’s side. That is why violence has been increasing during polls in recent years. The violence is not only limited during polls or before polling but can be witnessed within the houses of state assemblies in recent years. The violence which took place on the floor of the house in Uttar Pradesh to prove the majority for BJP government is a latest example to show that to what extent our polity has degenerated.

The reasons for increasing criminalisation of politics can be explored at various levels. The most important is the degeneration of values on the part of politicians. The commitment to serve the people, which is the foundation stone of democracy is declining. The only motive left is to serve themselves along with the near and dear ones. That is why all sorts of unfair means are practiced to secure votes. Caste and religious loyalties are emphasized and populist measures are announced. Above all the influence of money plays an important role. Muscle is used quite often. So booth capturing, bogus voting and ballot boxes replacements have become normal. Various pressure tactics are used to get votes.

Criminalisation of politics has other recent dimensions. Previously, due to nexus between criminals and politicians, politicians were using criminals for malpractices and money and muscle power. But now these criminals are themselves contesting the elections and winning the seats using all sorts of unfair means. Even the Vohra Committee report on ‘criminalisation of politics’ came out with the existence of politicians and criminals nexus. But nothing has happened to expose the nexus and on taking actions against them. Every political party gives tickets to criminals and that is why we have reached such a political mess.

The administration whose duty is to execute the laws and prevent the malpractices becomes a party to the whole nexus. The administration is either neutral during these incidents or takes sides. The reason being administration is corrupt. Whichever political party is in power, most of the times administration favours the party in power for its own personal gains. As a result gross violations of laws is witnessed. So the nexus between politicians, criminals and administration has to be broken at all levels in order to ensure smooth and effective functioning of our democracy.

Criminalisation of politics has serious repercussion on our society and polity. The people are left with no choice but to choose between worse candidates. Genuine and good candidates do not contest the elections. Either they do not have money and muscle power or party affiliation. Political parties do not welcome such candidates due to their corrupt and undemocratic systems. As a result the whole social atmosphere is vitiated. The whole system has become so corrupt and undemocratic that strong individuals are not able to fit in the electoral arena. Our educational patterns are not able to instill correct moral values which lead to drop out becoming criminals and entering legislatures.

The quality of debates in the Parliament and Legislative Assemblies has suffered badly. Most of the time the houses are adjourned on trifles and personal matters. Serious discussions on important issues are relegated into background. Important bills remain pending which need nation’s greater importance like ‘Lok Pal’ and ‘Women’s Representations’. What can criminals discuss? They do not have moral right to legislate and make laws when they have already violated laws. Some times the ability to debate on various issues has been questioned due to specializations on matters of governance. Governance is becoming technical and specialized day by day.

Criminalisation of politics need to be checked on all fronts. Political parties need to take the initiative by not giving tickets to tainted persons, only law to debar the criminals from contesting the elections will not help. The people should not encourage the criminals by making them win. The awareness should increase by imparting proper education with moral education right from the home to the school and college levels. Otherwise the nation will be wasting resources and time for nothing to be achieved. If it is not checked right now, the Parliament and Assemblies will not be right place to sit and legislate and govern the nation for the betterment of people.

 Essay No. 02

Criminalisation of Politics

“As per Election Commission works out 1,500 candidates in the 1996 Parliamentary election had criminal records and 40 of them got elected to the 11th lok Sabha. In the state legislatures, the picture is even more distressing. Out of the 4,072 sitting MLA’s in all the states, more than 700 have criminal records.”

Criminals enter politics to become politicians and then patronize other criminals. The dire consequences of this unholy alliance between criminals and politicians is that at every level from bottom, Panch at Panchayat level to Chief Minister or Ministers at State and Centre level, Criminals are being elected and appointed to the positions of power. Politics has now become a shortcut way of earning. Once elected a person can accumulate money sufficient for his few generations. Neither Gandhiji nor the other freedom fighters who sacrificed their all luxuries and comfort for the cause of nation would have ever dreamt that a day would come when India’s governance would pass into the hands of criminals and corrupt anti-social elements.

A virtual impression seems have gained ground that you could commit crime and get away with it, if you have political patronage et the proper level. The police dare not to proceed against you or if having initiated an action shall drag away their feet to defeat the ends of justice. With politics and crime intertwined, bureaucracy and the police have also become part of nexus. This unholy affinity is having a malignant effect over the public life and poses a threat to the democratic structure of the country. No one wants to vote for a criminal. And yet for years criminals have been using our electoral system to enter politics with citizens hopelessly looking on. Election officials asking candidates for detailed information about their criminal and financial backgrounds, let alone making this information available to the public before the polls began.

Criminalisation of politics is bad enough, what is happening now is that the criminals are acquiring legitimacy. The fallout of the process on society has been severe. People have lost sense of what is right and wrong, and in the new scheme of things, money has become everything, no matter how it is got. Crime has begun to raise its head among the youth, even from rich families, because crime is no longer considered bad. When even the leaders take recourse to bribery and corruption, who is to set the standards to follow?

No party is free from the influence of criminals. A new element has been added with people who have criminal back-ground actual fighting and winning electrons, indicating the hold, they have over Indian democracy. Though there were never any doubts that such a nexus existed. This feature examines the issue of criminalisation of politics and assesses the Vohra Committee Report which the government had kept under wraps for two years.

That the Indian people had not exercised vigilance has become painfully apparent because democracy has been hijacked by the criminal elements. Increasingly, politicians take the help of criminals to fight elections and to retain power. Often, criminals are used for illegal dealings of the leaders either to corner lucrative contracts or to intimated political or personal adversaries. The system suits the leaders. They can maintain a clean front while the dirty jobs are done by someone else. But there is a price to be paid soon, the criminals have enough information to blackmail the leaders or want slice of political power for themselves. Not only are they protected by politicians but are given that tickets to fight elections. They are no longer behind the scenes.

Criminalisation of politics has had a trickle down effect on the society and almost all institutions along with politics and society, the press and the judiciary have also suffered. The press seldom reports instances of corruption even though it is all around us. It is easy to plant stories by bribing newsmen, as many businessmen and politicians do. According to Kuldip Nayyer, It is an open secret that stories are often planted for a price.” Cases are now common of corrupt judges too who give judgments for a price. The situation has become such that the nexus is not limited to making money or fighting elections, but has come to pose a grave threat to the nation security linkages between criminals and leaders now have trans border ramifications. Pakistan’s intelligence wing is know to have links with Indian Mafia. Through this connection, it can have connections with ministers and gain access to state security matters. Seven tons of explosive could come to Maharashtra, inspite of our security agencies. Anything like that can happen again. The crime-politics nexus is, thus, a national risk, but it is clear that our leaders do not feel it or are helpless to do anything about it.

The enormous problem of the nexus between criminals and politicians cannot be ignored any longer. The submission of affidavit may have some deterrent effect but seems as it will also result in a futile exercise as in India, votes are being cast on the basis of caste, creed and religion. The poor illiterate people of this country still vote to their caste man or to the man of fellow religionship, or to the fellow who belong to their region. Moral values and ethics have long been vanished from the political arena of our country, but we cannot have such an indifferent attitude. We shall have to find a solution to eradicate the menace for which we are ourselves also responsible to a great extent.

In a democratic country, all the powers lies in the hands of the voters that is the general public. An awakening among the general mass can only show the right place to such criminal politicians. If criminalisation of politicians. If criminalisation or politics goes on, the dreams of freedom and prosperity would be shattered. Common man will lose trust in political system of the country. The future of democracy will be in danger. The government should take strong steps to stop this menace.

About evirtualguru_ajaygour

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Quick Links

Popular Tags

Visitors question & answer.

• rrrr on Hindi Essay on “Pratahkal ki Sair” , ”प्रातःकाल की सैर ” Complete Hindi Essay for Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation and other classes.
• Mihir on CBSE ASL “Listening Test Worksheet” (ASL) 2017 for Class 11, Listening Test Audio Script 1
• Anska on Hindi Essay on “Parishram Saphalta ki Kunji Hai” , ”परिश्रम सफलता की कुंजी है ” Complete Hindi Essay for Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation and other classes.
• TEJAS on Hindi Essay on “Manoranjan Ke Adhunik Sadhan” , ” मनोरंजन के आधुनिक साधन” Complete Hindi Essay for Class 10, Class 12 and Graduation and other classes.
• Hania Shakeel on Hindi Essay on “Yadi mein Adhyapak Hota”, “यदि मैं अध्यापक होता” Complete Essay, Paragraph, Speech for Class 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 Students.

Download Our Educational Android Apps

Latest Desk

• Raudra Ras Ki Paribhasha, Bhed, Kitne Prakar ke hote hai aur Udahran | रौद्र रस की परिभाषा, भेद, कितने प्रकार के होते है और उदाहरण
• Veer Ras Ki Paribhasha, Bhed, Kitne Prakar ke hote hai aur Udahran | वीर रस की परिभाषा, भेद, कितने प्रकार के होते है और उदाहरण
• Karun Ras Ki Paribhasha, Bhed, Kitne Prakar ke hote hai aur Udahran | करुण रस की परिभाषा, भेद, कितने प्रकार के होते है और उदाहरण
• Hasya Ras Ki Paribhasha, Bhed, Kitne Prakar ke hote hai aur Udahran हास्य रस की परिभाषा, भेद, कितने प्रकार के होते है और उदाहरण।
• Example Letter regarding election victory.
• Example Letter regarding the award of a Ph.D.
• Example Letter regarding the birth of a child.
• Example Letter regarding going abroad.
• Letter regarding the publishing of a Novel.

Vocational Edu.

• English Shorthand Dictation “East and Dwellings” 80 and 100 wpm Legal Matters Dictation 500 Words with Outlines.
• English Shorthand Dictation “Haryana General Sales Tax Act” 80 and 100 wpm Legal Matters Dictation 500 Words with Outlines meaning.
• English Shorthand Dictation “Deal with Export of Goods” 80 and 100 wpm Legal Matters Dictation 500 Words with Outlines meaning.
• English Shorthand Dictation “Interpreting a State Law” 80 and 100 wpm Legal Matters Dictation 500 Words with Outlines meaning.

2024 is not 1968 − and the Democratic convention in Chicago will play out very differently than in the days of Walter Cronkite

Cardiss Collins Professor of Communication Studies and Journalism, Northwestern University

Disclosure statement

Heather Hendershot does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

The presidential nominating conventions every four years are political events, but they are also media events. Since the advent of television, Democratic and Republican national convention organizers have sought to tightly stage-manage their gatherings for home viewers, and they’ve often succeeded.

But not always.

One of the worst misfires was the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago, when anti-war activists on Michigan Avenue chanted to the TV cameras “ the whole world is watching ,” as Mayor Richard J. Daley’s police beat them with billy clubs. In the convention hall itself, delegates staged their own protests for the cameras, and Daley’s security forces famously punched CBS newsman Dan Rather .

Images of that chaos circulated for months, and the Democratic nominee Hubert Humphrey never fully made up the points he lost when Americans saw that violence on their TV sets.

As an expert on the 1968 convention and, in particular, on how TV news covered that crisis, I’ve been thinking about how Chicago might handle – or mishandle – the Democratic convention as both a political and a media event this August.

Fear of a ’68 replay looms large , as the city has thus far denied permits to groups seeking to gather near the United Center, site of the convention. That denial of permits feels like a page from the Daley playbook.

But just because a situation echoes the past does not mean history is repeating itself. Today’s media is completely different, and a machine politician is no longer at the helm in Chicago.

Protesters outnumbered by law enforcement

Since 1998, conventions have been legally designated as national special security events, managed largely by the Secret Service .

But back in 1968, Daley decisively held the reins. Asked whether his police had “over-reacted” to protesters, Daley declared , “The policeman is not here to create disorder. The policeman is here to preserve disorder,” a statement that was less malapropism than Freudian slip. Under his guidance, the city was secured like a fortress, as 10,000 protesters faced off against phalanxes of police and National Guardsmen , with demonstrators outnumbered 2 to 1.

Daley scared off thousands with “law and order” threats in advance of the convention, but it’s reasonable to expect a much higher number of demonstrators arriving in 2024. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson is a progressive who is widely perceived as more sympathetic to activists than to the police . He has not discouraged protest at the upcoming convention.

That fact alone marks a pivotal difference between Johnson and Daley. Johnson is a Democrat , but not the team player and machine boss that Daley was. Nor is he the authoritarian that Daley was. Daley had the police in his back pocket .

He did not, however, have the media in his back pocket, and neither does Johnson. In fact, even if he wanted to, Johnson could not suppress the voices of journalists, influencers, bloggers, TikTokkers and podcasters sure to descend upon Chicago.

The media ecosystem is radically different from what it was 50-plus years ago, when news was more centralized and media technologies were less portable and more difficult to obtain by nonprofessionals.

Kneecapping news reporting

Taking advantage of this top-down communications structure, Daley did everything he could to stymie journalism during the convention. Crucially, he did not resolve an electrical workers strike against the local phone company, which led to a double-edged crisis.

First, not enough extra phones were installed on the convention floor and other key areas such as convention hotels. That shortage made it difficult for print journalists to communicate with editors and call in stories. The 3,200 extra telephones installed before the convention fell far short of what was needed. It boggles the mind, but this was life before everyone carried phones in their pockets.

Second, the electrical lines and hookups the networks needed for live street coverage could not be installed because of the strike, which meant the only live TV coverage was in the convention hall itself . Film footage shot in the streets was raced by motorcycle couriers to the convention site, the International Amphitheatre, where it was developed, edited and aired.

An awkward but more accurate chant during the Battle of Michigan Avenue would have been, “The whole world will be watching in three or four hours!”

CBS, NBC and ABC understood that Daley was deliberately kneecapping them. It felt like “a total news blackout,” as exasperated CBS anchorman Walter Cronkite declared, an atypical, quick aside that perhaps only a media historian obsessively rewatching every moment of network convention coverage would pick up on.

NBC anchorman Chet Huntley reported that “the news profession in this city is now under assault by the Chicago police .” These were heavy words. Before the rise of cable news, much of which slants left or right, the professional norms dominating TV news insistently dictated neutrality. If Huntley went out on a limb to critique Chicago police, it had to be true.

Or did it? Could Huntley be trusted?

Support for police, not journalists

This is the part of the story that sounds most contemporary. In surveys taken after the convention, and mountains of letters and telegrams sent to the networks, a majority of Americans judged the police to have used an appropriate amount of force or even insufficient force against protesters .

Criticism of violence against journalists was scant. Instead, the networks were accused of “liberal bias” for showing too much violence on the part of police and not enough on the part of protesters. The CBS News archive is packed with letters from viewers decrying a lack of objectivity. Many harshly declared that Dan Rather got what he deserved.

Broadcasters responded to critics that they had merely shown what happened . A rigorous content analysis done by NBC at the time found that 3% of the network’s coverage included street demonstrations. CBS showed closer to 5%, by NBC’s estimation.

Having watched the gavel-to-gavel coverage, I can attest that, if anything, the networks undercovered police violence against protesters, not the opposite.

Suppression ‘unimaginable today’

In 1968, defenders of Daley claimed that the press told the Chicago story incorrectly, but they didn’t deny that the police had been violent. Today, by contrast, basic truths are subject to partisanship , and the belief that the mainstream media is infused with liberal bias has taken root among conservatives and those farther right .

Former President Donald Trump exploited this preexisting worldview to his benefit while in office, and after, spreading the falsehood that the 2020 election had been stolen from him .

GOP members of Congress and Fox News personalities likewise tapped into a belief among their followers that mainstream media could not be believed when they described footage of the storming of the Capitol on Jan. 6 as evidence not of an insurrection but of “sightseeing .”

Accusations of “ fake news ” and exclamations that the mainstream media is “ the enemy of the people ” have put journalists in jeopardy not only at high-profile events such as political conventions but also during their everyday work.

This will all weigh heavily in the air in Chicago in August. And at the GOP convention in Milwaukee in July.

The suppression of live coverage is unimaginable today, with mainstream media distributing instant images, and nonprofessional videos circulating like quicksilver on social media.

With phones that also function as cameras in everyone’s hands in 2024, the challenge for Americans observing both conventions from afar will be less censorship and a paucity of live imagery than the reverse – an overabundance of unsorted imagery, potentially coupled with a proliferation of disinformation, amplified by those with malicious intent.

There are many differences between the 1968 and 2024 conventions. One of the biggest is that now, the whole world is filming. The problem today is not how much we can see but how much we can believe.

• Political conventions
• Walter Cronkite
• Hubert Humphrey
• network news
• 1968 Democratic Convention

Management Information Systems & Analytics – Limited Term Contract

Publications Manager

Audience Insight Officer

Academic Programs Officer, Scheduling

Director, Student Administration

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

George Clooney: I Love Joe Biden. But We Need a New Nominee.

By George Clooney

Mr. Clooney is an actor, director and film producer.

I’m a lifelong Democrat; I make no apologies for that. I’m proud of what my party represents and what it stands for. As part of my participation in the democratic process and in support of my chosen candidate, I have led some of the biggest fund-raisers in my party’s history. Barack Obama in 2012 . Hillary Clinton in 2016 . Joe Biden in 2020 . Last month I co-hosted the single largest fund-raiser supporting any Democratic candidate ever, for President Biden’s re-election. I say all of this only to express how much I believe in this process and how profound I think this moment is.

I love Joe Biden. As a senator. As a vice president and as president. I consider him a friend, and I believe in him. Believe in his character. Believe in his morals. In the last four years, he’s won many of the battles he’s faced.

But the one battle he cannot win is the fight against time. None of us can. It’s devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fund-raiser was not the Joe “ big F-ing deal ” Biden of 2010. He wasn’t even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate.

Was he tired? Yes. A cold? Maybe. But our party leaders need to stop telling us that 51 million people didn’t see what we just saw. We’re all so terrified by the prospect of a second Trump term that we’ve opted to ignore every warning sign. The George Stephanopoulos interview only reinforced what we saw the week before. As Democrats, we collectively hold our breath or turn down the volume whenever we see the president, whom we respect, walk off Air Force One or walk back to a mic to answer an unscripted question.

Is it fair to point these things out? It has to be. This is about age. Nothing more. But also nothing that can be reversed. We are not going to win in November with this president. On top of that, we won’t win the House, and we’re going to lose the Senate. This isn’t only my opinion; this is the opinion of every senator and Congress member and governor who I’ve spoken with in private. Every single one, irrespective of what he or she is saying publicly.

We love to talk about how the Republican Party has ceded all power, and all of the traits that made it so formidable with Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, to a single person who seeks to hold on to the presidency, and yet most of our members of Congress are opting to wait and see if the dam breaks. But the dam has broken. We can put our heads in the sand and pray for a miracle in November, or we can speak the truth.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and  log into  your Times account, or  subscribe  for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber?  Log in .

Want all of The Times?  Subscribe .

• Skip to content
• Skip to this site's menu
• Skip to search

Welcome to Brock University

Information for.

• Future students
• Current students
• International
• Professional and Continuing Studies
• Community partners
• Alumni and donors
• Faculties & Departments
• Graduate Studies
• Teaching & Learning
• Academic Integrity
• Research @ Brock
• Institutes and Centres
• Research services
• Brock innovation
• Transdisciplinarity at Brock
• Funding opportunities
• About Brock
• Visitor information
• Careers @ Brock
• A–Z directory

Quick links

• Student Email / 365
• my.brocku.ca
• Brightspace
• Office of the Registrar
• Campus Store
• Brock Sports
• Important Dates
• Students’ Union (BUSU)
• Graduate Students’ Union (GSA)
• The Brock News
• Events around campus
• Faculty and Staff directory
• Campus Safety
• Faculty and Staff Login
• Faculty and Staff Email
• ITS Help Desk - Password Resets
• Brock U Home

Want to go to Brock but not sure where to start? We can help.

How to apply.

• Undergraduate students
• Graduate students
• Teacher education
• Continuing education

Our programs

• Undergraduate programs
• Graduate programs
• Spring / Summer courses
• Online Learning
• Take a virtual tour
• Book a campus tour
• Living at Brock
• Smart Start

More information

• Admissions @ Brock
• Important dates
• Financial aid
• Request information

Faculty of Social Sciences

Political science, in this section.

• Course outline archives

News and events

• Speaker Series
• Experiential learning
• Graduate Program
• Student Award Winners
• Academic advising
• Undergraduate program information
• Registration guides and timetables
• Graduate program information
• Graduate Handbook
• Faculty of Graduate Studies
• Research guide
• Student representatives
• Get involved
• Resources at Brock
• Careers at Brock
• Program Specializations
• People in the Department
• Community Engagement

Congratulations to Essay Prize Winner Brontë Slote

Thursday, July 11, 2024 | By jduff

Congratulations to Brontë Slote (BA ’24) on receiving the Faculty of Social Sciences Dean’s Undergraduate Award for Excellent Writing . Her winning paper, “Loss of Dogs, Loss of Life: The Destruction of Inuit Identity and Culture through Colonial Sled Dog Policies,” was nominated by Assistant Professor of Political Science Liam Midzain-Gobin .   

Slote’s essay analyzes colonial policies surrounding the treatment of sled dogs in the Canadian Arctic during the mid-1900s. The paper sheds light on how these policies, driven by Eurocentric ideas of private property ownership and assimilation, disrupted Inuit-qimmiit relations, directly contributing to the destruction of Inuit identity and culture.  

“I was passionate about this topic because it was an intersection of my interests, drawing from my minor in Political Science while also tying in knowledge gained from my background in Critical Animal Studies and Canadian Studies,” says Slote. “It serves as a powerful example of overlapping oppressions wherein colonialism and speciesism come together to affect both human and non-human members of a shared community.”  

Slote feels fortunate that her Political Science courses focused on developing critical thinking and research skills, which she says helped her learn how to craft a well-written argument.   

In POLI 4P37, she adds, “I had the opportunity to participate in a peer review activity where I not only improved my writing skills through feedback from my classmates but also gained insights into the peer review process that academic papers undergo before publication.”  

Midzain-Gobin says he was thrilled to nominate Slote for the writing award because her essay went “over and above” what is typically seen in undergraduate courses.  

“Slote’s essay draws on primary source material from the Qikiqtani Truth Commission and provides a rigorous analysis of Inuit-qimmiit relations and settler colonialism,” he says. “The paper is also wonderfully written. Simultaneously accessible and richly detailed, the clarity of the prose serves to highlight the analytical insight that Slote brings.”

• Congratulations to Essay Prize Winner Brontë Slote July 11, 2024
• Brock Model UN competes on world stage April 12, 2024
• New POLI Professor Danielle McNabb in the News October 30, 2023

Connect with us

Helpful links.

• Emergency contacts
• Mental Health and Wellness
• Financial information
• Contact Brock University
• Media relations
• Website feedback

Every gift makes a difference.

Copyright © 2024 Brock University

Non-discrimination Policy University policies Privacy Accessibility

Niagara Region 1812 Sir Isaac Brock Way St. Catharines, ON L2S 3A1 Canada +1 905-688-5550

• X, formerly Twitter

We acknowledge the land on which Brock University was built is the traditional territory of the Haudenosaunee and Anishinaabe peoples, many of whom continue to live and work here today. This territory is covered by the Upper Canada Treaties and is within the land protected by the Dish with One Spoon Wampum agreement. Today this gathering place is home to many First Nations, Metis, and Inuit peoples and acknowledging reminds us that our great standard of living is directly related to the resources and friendship of Indigenous people.

We use cookies to improve your overall web experience. By using our website you consent to our use of cookies in accordance with our Privacy Policy I agree

• Classroom Programme
• Interview Guidance
• Online Programme
• Drishti Store
• My Bookmarks
• My Progress
• Change Password
• From The Editor's Desk
• How To Use The New Website
• Help Centre

Achievers Corner

• Topper's Interview
• About Civil Services
• UPSC Prelims Syllabus
• GS Prelims Strategy
• Prelims Analysis
• GS Paper-I (Year Wise)
• GS Paper-I (Subject Wise)
• CSAT Strategy
• Previous Years Papers
• Practice Quiz
• Weekly Revision MCQs
• 60 Steps To Prelims
• Prelims Refresher Programme 2020

Mains & Interview

• Mains GS Syllabus
• Mains GS Strategy
• Mains Answer Writing Practice
• Essay Strategy
• Fodder For Essay
• Model Essays
• Drishti Essay Competition
• Ethics Strategy
• Ethics Case Studies
• Ethics Discussion
• Ethics Previous Years Q&As
• Papers By Years
• Papers By Subject
• Be MAINS Ready
• Awake Mains Examination 2020
• Interview Strategy
• Interview Guidance Programme

Current Affairs

• Daily News & Editorial
• Daily CA MCQs
• Sansad TV Discussions
• Monthly CA Consolidation
• Monthly Editorial Consolidation
• Monthly MCQ Consolidation

Drishti Specials

• To The Point
• Important Institutions
• Learning Through Maps
• PRS Capsule
• Summary Of Reports
• Gist Of Economic Survey

Study Material

• NCERT Books
• NIOS Study Material
• IGNOU Study Material
• Yojana & Kurukshetra
• Chhatisgarh
• Uttar Pradesh
• Madhya Pradesh

Test Series

• UPSC Prelims Test Series
• UPSC Mains Test Series
• UPPCS Prelims Test Series
• UPPCS Mains Test Series
• BPSC Prelims Test Series
• RAS/RTS Prelims Test Series
• Daily Editorial Analysis
• YouTube PDF Downloads
• Strategy By Toppers
• Ethics - Definition & Concepts
• Mastering Mains Answer Writing
• Places in News
• UPSC Mock Interview
• PCS Mock Interview
• Interview Insights
• Prelims 2019
• Product Promos
• Daily Updates

Make Your Note

Criminalization of Politics

• 02 Apr 2021
• GS Paper - 2
• Representation of People's Act
• Judgements & Cases

Why in News

According to the National Election Watch (NEW) and Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) , in the Assembly elections in Assam, Kerala, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, at least 1,157 out of 6,318 candidates have criminal cases against them.

• NEW is a nationwide campaign since 2002 comprising more than 1200 Non-governmental Organizations (NGOs) and other citizen led organizations working together on electoral reforms, improving democracy and governance in India.
• ADR is an Indian NGO established in 1999 situated in New Delhi.
• The criminalization of politics means the participation of criminals in politics which includes that criminals can contest in the elections and get elected as members of the Parliament and the State legislature. It takes place primarily due to the nexus between politicians and criminals.

Legal Aspect of Disqualification of Criminal Candidates

• In this regard, Indian Constitution does not specify as to what disqualifies a person from contesting elections for the Parliament, Legislative assembly or any other legislature.
• Section 8 of the act , i.e. disqualification on conviction for certain offences, according to which an individual punished with a jail term of more than two years cannot stand in an election for six years after the jail term has ended.
• The law does not bar individuals who have criminal cases pending against them from contesting elections therefore the disqualification of candidates with criminal cases depends on their conviction in these cases.
• In spite of taking appropriate measures to amend the RPA Act, there has been an unsaid understanding among the political parties which deters Parliament to make strong law curbing criminalisation of politics.
• Several laws and court judgments have not helped much, due to the lack of enforcement of laws and judgments.
• Publishing of the entire criminal history of candidates fielded by political parties may not be very effective, as a major chunk of voters tend to vote through a narrow prism of community interests like caste or religion.
• Candidates with serious records seem to do well despite their public image, largely due to their ability to finance their own elections and bring substantive resources to their respective parties.
• Also, sometimes voters are left with no options , as all competing candidates have criminal records.
• It limits the choice of voters to elect a suitable candidate.
• It is against the ethos of free and fair election which is the bedrock of a democracy.
• The major problem is that the law-breakers become law-makers , this affects the efficacy of the democratic process in delivering good governance.
• 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.
• It also leads to increased circulation of black money during and after elections , which in turn increases corruption in society and affects the working of public servants.
• It introduces a culture of violence in society and sets a bad precedent for the youth to follow and reduces people's faith in democracy as a system of governance.
• In February 2020 Supreme Court (SC) ordered the political parties to publish the entire criminal history of their candidates for Assembly and Lok Sabha elections along with the reasons that forced them to field suspected criminals.
• The SC in Public Interest Foundation vs Union Of India, 2018 had also directed political parties to publish online the pending criminal cases of their candidates.

Way Forward

• Various committees (Dinesh Goswami, Inderjeet Committee) on the electoral reforms have recommended for state funding of elections which will curb use of black money to a large extent and thereby will have a significant impact on limiting criminalization of politics.
• Regulating the affairs of a political party is essential for a cleaner electoral process. Therefore, it is imperative to strengthen the election commission.
• Voters also need to be vigilant about misuse of money, gifts and other inducements during elections.
• Given the reluctance by the political parties to curb criminalisation of politics and its growing detrimental effects on Indian democracy, Indian courts must now seriously consider banning people accused with serious criminal charges from contesting elections.

George Clooney has delivered a scathing message to Joe Biden. Where does it leave his election bid?

Analysis George Clooney has delivered a scathing message to Joe Biden. Where does it leave his election bid?

Welcome back to your weekly update on US politics, where North America bureau chief Jade Macmillan catches you up on the biggest developments in America as we hurtle towards election day in November.

Talk about a star-studded affair. 

At a theatre in Los Angeles last month, Hollywood A-listers George Clooney, Julia Roberts and Barbara Streisand took the stage in a public show of support for Joe Biden. 

Talk show host Jimmy Kimmel interviewed the president and his former boss, Barack Obama, as a crowd of supporters watched on.  

It was a fundraising success, reportedly bringing in  a record $US30 million ($44 million) for the Biden campaign.

But just a few weeks after the event took place, Clooney has called on the president to withdraw from November's election. 

"It's devastating to say it, but the Joe Biden I was with three weeks ago at the fundraiser was not the Joe " big F-ing deal " Biden of 2010,"  the actor wrote in the New York Times .

"He wasn't even the Joe Biden of 2020. He was the same man we all witnessed at the debate."

Biden has remained defiant in the wake of his  disastrous debate performance against Donald Trump, insisting it was a "bad night" but that he's still the best person for the job.

And he may well dismiss Clooney as  one of the "elites" that he's accused of  trying to push him out of the race.

(Asked for comment on the Clooney piece, the White House referred reporters to  the letter the president sent congressional Democrats earlier this week , urging them to unite behind him.)

But the actor's high-profile intervention is deeply damaging on several fronts. 

Clooney is one of the relatively small group of people who can speak first-hand about a recent personal interaction with Biden. 

And as a lifelong Democrat who "loves" Biden, he argues the party is "so terrified by the prospect of a second Trump term that we've opted to ignore every warning sign".

Was he tired? Yes. A cold? Maybe. But our party leaders need to stop telling us that 51 million people didn't see what we just saw.  We're all so terrified by the prospect of a second Trump term that we've opted to ignore every warning sign.  The George Stephanopoulos interview only reinforced what we saw the week before.  As Democrats, we collectively hold our breath or turn down the volume whenever we see the president, whom we respect, walk off Air Force One or walk back to a mic to answer an unscripted question. Is it fair to point these things out? It has to be. This is about age. Nothing more. But also nothing that can be reversed. 

Nancy Pelosi hints at a new deadline

The president had been hoping to use this week's gathering of NATO leaders in Washington to reset the narrative over his political future. 

"Come listen. See what they say," he said of travelling European allies in his recent  make-or-break TV interview,  arguing the summit was a good way to "judge" him. 

Biden sought to project a message of unity and strength, using  his opening remarks  to highlight NATO's expansion in the wake of Russia's invasion of Ukraine. 

"Again and again, at critical moments, we chose unity over disunion, progress over retreat, freedom over tyranny, and hope over fear," he said.

But the following morning, one of the biggest Democratic names on Capitol Hill appeared to put him on notice. 

Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, one of the few people thought to carry the political weight to influence Biden's decision-making, described his NATO speech as "absolutely spectacular".

However, when she was asked whether she supported his candidacy, she said it was "up to the president to decide if he is going to run" — a call he insists he's already made.

"We're all encouraging him to make that decision. Because time is running short," she said, suggesting anxious Democrats should wait until after the summit to air their concerns.

"Let's just hold off whatever you're thinking, either tell somebody privately, but you don't have to put that out on the table until we see how we go this week."

On Wednesday, Earl Blumenauer became the ninth Democratic member from the lower house of Congress to call on Biden to end his re-election campaign, saying he should not be the Democratic presidential nominee.

Biden's next big test could be a rare, solo press conference he's expected to hold on Thursday, local time. 

His press secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre, has faced  fiery media briefings all week , as journalists interrogated White House talking points on Biden's previous missteps and demanded answers to new questions. 

Two weeks to the day since the debate, the president will once again come under enormous pressure to convince voters – and his party – that he shouldn't stand aside.

Revelling in Biden chaos, Trump tries to back away from Project 2025 

Every day that Biden's political crisis drags on is a win for his political opponent, and Trump has sought to make the most of it. 

The former president kept an uncharacteristically low profile in the debate's aftermath, allowing the divisions within the Democratic Party to consume the news cycle. 

But he's taken targeted swings at Biden in recent days,  telling Fox News the president's "ego" would likely prevent him from withdrawing, and using a rally in Florida to mock the man he's nicknamed "Sleepy Joe".

Trump also set his sights on Biden's possible replacement, Vice-President Kamala Harris, criticising her record on the issue of immigration and arguing "someone even halfway competent" would have "bounced" the president from office years ago.

Trump is gearing up for next week's Republican National Convention, where he's set to be confirmed as the party's nominee, and he continues to tease his upcoming running mate announcement. 

But he's also tried to distance himself from a blueprint for a potential second term that's gained traction as a campaign message for Democrats. 

It's called Project 2025. Biden told his social media followers to google it earlier this week.

Project 2025 is a lengthy "presidential transition" plan, drafted by dozens of conservative organisations and a number of former Trump administration officials, outlining a major reshaping of the US government .

It proposes an expansion of presidential power, replacing public servants with political loyalists, and overhauling policy in areas such as climate change, education and reproductive rights. 

Biden's campaign has criticised Project 2025, which is led by the Heritage Foundation think tank, as a "far-right playbook for an extreme and dangerous administration".

And it accused Heritage president Kevin Roberts of threatening violence when he told  the War Room podcast that the US was "in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be".

Trump's campaign has previously sought to characterise Project 2025 as nothing more than  "recommendations" from "external allies" , but the former president himself stepped in after the podcast came out, arguing he had "nothing to do with them".

"I disagree with some of the things they're saying and some of the things they're saying are absolutely ridiculous and abysmal," he said on Truth Social.

Trump also made his mark on the Republican National Committee's (RNC) draft  2024 platform, which spells out the party's policy priorities and is expected to be adopted at the upcoming convention. 

What would usually be a much longer document was scaled back to 16 pages, headed "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

And for the first time in decades , the RNC has not called for a national ban on abortion – instead reflecting Trump's position that the issue should be left to the states in the wake of the fall of Roe v Wade. 

Some anti-abortion campaigners have criticised the decision, with Trump's former vice-president Mike Pence saying the platform was a  "profound disappointment" . 

But Trump  blamed Republicans who he said "poorly handled" the issue of abortion for failing to deliver anticipated wins in the 2022 midterm elections, and he's trying to prevent a repeat. 

In case you missed it: Watching Whitmer

The ongoing speculation over Biden's future has prompted plenty of discussion about who might become the Democratic candidate if he bows out. 

In a case of extraordinary timing, one of the names most often mentioned – Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer – started promoting her new memoir this week.

Unlike South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, whose chances of becoming Trump's running mate sank after her autobiography  revealed she'd killed a dog , one account of Whitmer's book said its  "biggest revelation" was about a shark she had tattooed on her shoulder. 

But writing a memoir has  long been a sign of higher political ambition in the US , and the promotional tour for True Gretch has only intensified chatter around her future. 

Whitmer, for her part, insists she's backing the president.

"The field is set," she told MSNBC . 

"Joe Biden is the only person who is determining whether or not he stays in this race. 

"He has made his decision, he's communicated that decision, and it is time to get going."

• X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Ukraine will stop putin, biden tells nato in forceful speech.

A defiant letter, a surprise interview and frustration with 'the elites': Biden digs in for another day

This Vegas voter is backing the 'scary' candidate. She's an example of Biden's problem in America's gambling capital

• Foreign Affairs
• US Elections
• United States
• World Politics