Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) organised a webinar on “Lawbreakers being the lawmakers: A paradox in Indian democracy” on 26th March 2025. Curbing the rising number of legislators with criminal cases: Who will bell the cat? Executive or Judiciary?
1. Does repeated election of tainted politicians adversely affect good governance?
2. Is the Indian voter unaffected by the tainted background of politicians?
3. Lifetime ban or disqualification for 10 or 15 years for convicted politicians: which is appropriate?
4. Slew of Supreme Court judgements such as fast track courts, trial to be completed within a year, publication of criminal cases details by candidate and political parties in media, etc, as also recommendations of various committees/commissions have been unable to bring about reform.
Is there a way forward or will voters/citizens remain captives of the current duplicitous system wherein the rules of the game are different for the politicians and common citizens?
The moderator, Maj Gen Anil Verma (Retd), Head of ADR, initiated the webinar highlighting ADR's findings on increasing criminality and the need for political parties to desist from giving tickets to candidates with serious criminal cases. As per ADR's analysis, the percentage of candidates with criminal cases contesting in the Lok Sabha jumped from 12% in 2004 to 20% in 2024 and candidates with serious criminal cases contesting in the Lok Sabha doubled from 7% in 2004 to 14% in 2024.
The percentage of MPs with criminal cases increased from 24% in 2004 to 46% in 2024, and MPs with serious criminal cases escalated from 11% in 2004 to 31% in 2024. He also mentioned that ADR's latest report, "Analysis of Sitting MLAs from 28 State Assemblies and 3 Union Territories of India 2025", stated that 45% MLAs have declared criminal cases against themselves and 29% MLAs have declared serious criminal cases.
The distinguished panel comprised Shri Gaurav Gogoi (Member of Parliament & Deputy Leader of Indian National Congress in Lok Sabha), Dr S.Y. Quraishi (former Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India), Shri Prashant Bhushan (Senior Lawyer, Supreme Court of India), Ms Kavita Srivastava (President, People's Union for Civil Liberties), and Advocate Ruben Mascarenhas (Working President, Aam Aadmi Party-Mumbai).
Some of the views shared by the speakers are given below:
1. Shri Gaurav Gogoi (Member of Parliament & Deputy Leader of Indian National Congress in Lok Sabha): "The issue of persons with criminal antecedents entering into Parliament is a serious one. Based on my anecdotal experience, it seems voters are not keeping in mind the criminal cases of a candidate while voting. It no longer acts as a deterrent for voters. There is a need to make this information more accessible and create widespread voter awareness around it including in vernacular languages. Additionally, there is a need for public pressure on political class like we do for various other issues and serious engagement with political leadership. However, if the public has the right to choose whoever they want, can we deny an Indian citizen the right to contest, academically speaking? There are not many major democracies that have banned convicted persons from contesting elections for lifetime."
2. Ms Kavita Srivastava (President, People's Union for Civil Liberties): "We need to talk about the weaponization of the criminal justice system, against not just the political opposition or dissenters but all those who question (the government). The pace at which the trial moves is extremely problematic. Police are always subservient. Today, the judiciary has been weaponized against activists. The way minorities or adivasis are being criminalised. It is in this context that we have to look at criminality. Disclosure has to be absolute. However, at this stage I don't think we can agree that we can ban the person for 10 or 15 years. It's important to understand how the system can be weaponized. We cannot keep giving more power to the state. The public has a major role to play."
3. Dr S.Y. Quraishi (former Chief Election Commissioner, Election Commission of India): "I am against the lifetime ban on convicted persons from contesting elections. Nine to ten years are enough for a politician to be out of sight and lose relevance. This is enough punishment. As far as the judiciary's role is concerned, they asked the state governments to set up special courts for this purpose. In 2021, the performance of these courts was reviewed, and the Supreme Court expressed dissatisfaction. I recommend doing a study as to what has been the performance or experience of these special courts to take things forward. There is zero impact on voters about not voting for those with criminal cases. So there is also a need for a counter program to educate voters."
4. Advocate Ruben Mascarenhas (Working President, Aam Aadmi PartyMumbai): "Criminals enter politics because our criminal justice system gives them ample opportunity to subvert it. All of this happens because there is a systemic problem. A distinction has to be made between a person who is accused of a crime, a person who is undergoing a trial and someone who is convicted. Today for a criminal element to file a case against a non-criminal element and make them look like criminal elements is easy. This is a multi-headed hydra which needs reform but more than that, political pressure. There is public pressure but what is needed is for the culture to be set at the top, for political parties to give tickets to decent people. Regarding life time ban, I think the person should be disqualified for a particular period of time. Life time ban is without precedent anywhere in the world. As long as a person has served a sentence in a reformatory system like ours, we should go with disqualification."
5. Shri Prashant Bhushan (Senior Lawyer, Supreme Court of India): "It is true that there is a big problem that powerful politicians are able to delay their trials for a long time and thereby prevent their conviction. This is primarily a failure of our criminal justice system, especially in the absence of police reforms. There is a problem at the level of investigation and at the level of trials. Judicial reforms have been pending for a long time. Far from it, we have not been successful in filling up the current vacancies in the courts. We are functioning at 66-70% of the strength of the existing judiciary. We are seeing across the board failure on part of the political class and judiciary in implementing judicial reforms that will bring about a quicker administration of justice which means quicker decisions and, therefore, quicker conviction in all these cases."
Takeaways: The discussion on this crucial topic was well received by everyone. Several questions were raised by the members of the audience. It was widely believed and expressed that political parties remain a significant stakeholder in this matter. Without their serious involvement and taking lead in barring tickets to candidates with criminal antecedents, we are far from an effective solution. Additionally, it was felt that the onus lies on the citizens to mobilise and build pressure for parties to act in a responsible manner and work towards decriminalization of electoral politics in India.
https://www.youtube.com/live/_RqgXeKoE8s
Association for Democratic Reforms, adr@adrindia.org/national-election-watch@ googlegroups.com,national-ew-news@ googlegroups.com
0 Comments