In News:

According to a report submitted before the Supreme Court, 4,192 criminal cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs are pending trial across India. Criminalisation of politics remains a major challenge to free and fair elections and effective democratic governance.

Key Facts

• 4,192 cases against sitting/former MPs and MLAs are pending trial.
• Chief Ministers of 14 out of 28 States have criminal cases pending against them.
• Despite repeated judicial directions for speedy disposal, pendency has remained broadly high.

Major Reasons for Criminalisation of Politics

1. Delayed Disqualification: Under the Representation of the People Act, 1951, disqualification generally follows conviction, allowing accused persons to contest elections while trials remain pending.
2. Money & Muscle Power: Candidates with financial resources and local influence are often considered electorally “winnable”.
3. Low Voter Awareness: Although candidate affidavits disclose criminal records, assets and other details, electoral choices may still be influenced by caste, religion and local factors.
4. Political Party Complicity: Parties may prioritise electoral winnability over criminal antecedents.
5. Judicial Delays: Adjournments and prolonged trials can allow cases to remain unresolved for years.

Impact

• Free & Fair Elections: Restricts voters' meaningful choices.
• Democratic Accountability: Weakens public confidence in elected institutions.
• Electoral Malpractices: Can encourage intimidation, booth capturing and use of illicit funds.
• Policy Capture: Political power may be used to protect criminal networks and vested interests.
• Public Trust: Persistent criminalisation can erode faith in democratic institutions.

Important Committee Recommendations

• Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998): Recommended partial state funding of elections to reduce dependence on private funds.
• 2nd ARC (2007): Supported measures including partial state funding to curb the role of money in elections.
• NCRWC (2002): Recommended greater accountability of political parties, including auditing of party expenditure and disclosure of candidates' assets/liabilities.
• Law Commission, 244th Report (2014):
  • Recommended disqualification where charges are framed for offences carrying a maximum punishment of 5 years or more, subject to safeguards.
  • Recommended fast-track courts for cases involving sitting MPs and MLAs.

Supreme Court Interventions

1. Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)

• Required disclosure of candidates' criminal records, assets and educational qualifications.
• Linked voters' right to know with freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a).

2. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)

• Held that a sitting MP/MLA/MLC is immediately disqualified upon conviction for an offence attracting imprisonment of 2 years or more.

3. Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018)

• Directed political parties to publicise candidates' criminal antecedents and details of pending cases.

4. Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora (2020)

• Political parties must publish details of candidates with pending criminal cases through their websites, social media and newspapers, along with reasons for selecting them, within 48 hours of candidate selection.

5. Speedy Trials

• 2017: SC directed establishment of 12 special courts in 10 States/UTs.
• 2018: Directed identification of designated Sessions and Magistrial Courts for priority trial of cases involving legislators.
• 2023: Directed High Courts to register suo motu cases to monitor disposal of criminal cases involving MPs/MLAs.

130th Constitution Amendment Bill, 2025

The Bill proposes a separate mechanism concerning ministers facing serious criminal allegations:

• Applies where an offence carries a maximum punishment of 5 years or more.
• Requires arrest and detention for 30 consecutive days.
• If the Prime Minister/Chief Minister remains in custody for 30 consecutive days, the Bill proposes that they resign or cease to hold office from the 31st day.
• The Bill was referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) following opposition.