A fortnight ago, a Supreme Court bench gave expression to the anguish all thinking citizens share about the criminalisation of our politics. There is no doubt that crime and politics are coming together far too often in our public life. ADR, a civil society organisation which compiles the data from the Election Commission, reports that 46% of the members of the present Lok Sabha have criminal cases against them, and 31% of the members face grave charges like rape, murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, etc.
On behalf of the Lok Satta Movement, I launched a campaign against the criminalisation of politics in 1999, when we revealed to the public, after thorough and independent scrutiny, that 42 candidates for major parties contesting Assembly and Lok Sabha elections in Andhra Pradesh had a criminal record. Since then, despite a spate of Supreme Court decisions, public pressure and media scrutiny, criminalisation has continued unchecked.
Section 8 of the Representation Act, 1951, provides for disqualification of candidates who are convicted for specified offences or suffer a sentence of two years or more for any offence. But the weaknesses of our criminal justice system allow many criminals to escape conviction for years and decades. The efforts to speed up trials in cases involving elected politicians did not bear fruit either. Given this experience, we need to carefully examine how criminalisation can be curbed.
Disqualification of convicted criminals is certainly necessary. But so far, disqualification provisions have had very little effect. Life-time disqualification of convicted criminals is appealing, and it is such a plea that is before the Supreme Court Bench. But we must be cautious about using disqualification as a tool to address our democratic deficit. A wrong conviction or excessive punishment awarded in a relatively minor case can have seriously debilitating consequences to our polity. Take, for instance, Mr Rahul Gandhi’s conviction and sentencing for two years by a trial court in a case of criminal defamation. If disqualification, particularly for life, follows such convictions, our political process would be derailed, undermining the legitimacy of democracy.
Let us remember that many authoritarian nations use disqualification as a tool to derail democracy – Russia, Belarus, Pakistan, Turkey, Myanmar, Bangladesh, etc. Disqualification should be sparingly used in only extreme cases. That is why our Provisional Parliament, which comprised members of the Constituent Assembly, provided for the removal or reduction of the period of disqualification. Section 11 of the Act reads: “The Election Commission may, for reasons to be recorded, remove any disqualification under this Chapter or reduce the period of disqualification.” The founding members of our republic exhibited great wisdom in realising that disqualification on occasion could undermine our democracy and gave the Election Commission the power to remove disqualifications.
In any case, disqualification or denial of a seat to a person with criminal record or serious complaints against him may not really serve the intended purpose. Their proxies may fill the vacancies, and we will only have achieved a pyrrhic victory. Let us take the Kaiserganj Lok Sabha constituency in Uttar Pradesh. When Mr Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh was denied the seat by the BJP, his son, Mr Karan Bhushan Singh, became the party candidate, and he won the 2024 Lok Sabha election handily, even as the party faced headwinds in the state.
It does not mean we are helpless and should wring our hands in despair. We need to go into the root causes of criminalisation and address them to improve democracy. There are four questions that need to be addressed with regard to criminalisation. For want of space, I am briefly outlining the case for reform, and the details can be examined in later columns.
First, those whom polite society regards as criminals are often regarded as heroes and saviours by most local people. Why? In the face of our failure to deliver speedy, effective, accessible, affordable justice, there is a marked demand for ‘criminals’! The local Robin Hoods, who deliver rough and ready justice for a price, often with brutal methods, are seen as the undeclared judges!
Second, why is a successful criminal entering politics and exposing himself to media and public scrutiny? In a system in which crime investigation is under political control, it makes abundant sense for a criminal to join politics. Once a politician with a major party, the police, whom he should fear, will fear him instead and take orders from him! What better way to protect his cronies and crush his opponents and competitors?
Third, why are major parties nominating those with serious criminal records as candidates? Every criminal-turned-politician styled himself as the leader of a caste group or community. Criminals combine the money power from crime, organisation and muscle power, which are the hallmarks of crime, and caste leadership. Parties that are desperate to win the marginal vote in our system of election feel compelled to nominate candidates with these attributes, and they often win the election.
Finally, why are people voting for known criminals? In a wooden, apathetic, unresponsive, dysfunctional system with a high degree of centralisation, most ordinary citizens cannot get anything done. Against this backdrop, a legislator with a criminal history evoking fear is more likely to make the lower bureaucracy deliver at least some services.
If we are serious about our desire to end criminalisation and improve democracy, we need to address all these four questions and reform the system. There are no quick fixes.
The author is the founder of Lok Satta movement and Foundation for Democratic Reforms. Email: [email protected] / Twitter@jp_loksatta
