What is Criminalisation of Politics?
- “Criminalisation of politics” refers to the infiltration of criminals, lawbreakers, and corrupt individuals into the political system, who then use their power and influence to further their interests at the cost of the country and its citizens.
- In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections analysis by ADR, out of 1618 candidates, 16% have declared criminal cases, with 10% facing serious charges.
Key Drivers
- Electoral Winnability: Parties choose ‘winnable’ candidates, ignoring criminal records.
- Money & Muscle Power: Candidates with criminal backgrounds often have unaccounted wealth and musclemen networks to finance expensive elections.
- Link with political funding opacity (cash donations, misuse of electoral bonds).
- Vote Bank Politics: Candidates with a criminal background are perceived as “Robin Hood figures,” providing protection, patronage, or caste-based mobilisation that leads to identity-based voting.
- Media Complicity: Political control over media narratives, under-reporting of cases, and favourable coverage generate public tolerance or admiration for criminal leaders.
- State-Crime Nexus: Criminals use politics to gain immunity and legitimacy, while parties use them to intimidate opponents and secure votes.
- Structural Loopholes: First-Past-The-Post (FPTP) system allows candidates with low vote share but solid caste/community support to win.
- Lack of inner-party democracy in candidate selection.
Impact of Criminalisation of Politics
- Erosion of Rule of Law: Legislators facing charges directly undermines the constitutional principle of equality before law. It blurs the line between law-makers and law-breakers.
- Policy Capture: Politico-criminal nexus ensures that laws and regulations are shaped to protect vested interests rather than public welfare (e.g., mining contracts, liquor mafias in Bihar and UP).
- Weakening of Institutions: Criminalised leaders often interfere in police postings, bureaucratic transfers, and investigations, reducing institutional autonomy (Second Administrative Reforms Commission).
- Corruption & Black Money: Criminal politicians fuel increased circulation of illicit money and corruption in elections.
- Governance Deficit: Focus on protecting personal cases and networks diverts attention from developmental governance. E.g., states with high criminal representation (Bihar, UP) often lag in HDI indicators.
- Electoral Distortions: Intimidation, booth capturing, and vote-buying distort elections. The Dinesh Goswami Committee (1990) highlighted the role of musclemen in skewing voter choice.
- Democratic Trust: The entry of criminals into legislatures undermines public trust and normalises the “bahubali culture,” where muscle power is considered essential in politics.
Key Judgments
- ADR vs Union of India (2002): Mandatory disclosure of criminal cases, assets, and educational qualifications.
- PUCL vs Union of India (2004): Upheld voters’ right to know candidate background as part of Article 19(1)(a).
- Lily Thomas (2013): Immediate disqualification of convicted MPs/MLAs, striking down the earlier 3-month buffer.
- Public Interest Foundation (2018): Directed political parties to publicise criminal records of candidates on websites, newspapers, and TV.
Election Commission of India (ECI) Measures
- Affidavit disclosures made mandatory before elections.
- Enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct (MCC) to curb the use of muscle/money.
- Bans on carrying arms near polling booths.
- Power to cancel polls in cases of booth capturing and malpractice.
Law Commission (2015)
- Recommendation: Disqualification based on framing of charges for serious offences (punishable with 5 or more years).
- Suggested Time Limit: Charges framed at least 1 year before nomination scrutiny.
Recent Initiatives
- Lifetime Ban: The Supreme Court of India is hearing a PIL seeking a lifetime disqualification for convicted MPs and MLAs from contesting elections.
- Mandatory Disclosure: ECI requires political parties to publicly disclose details of candidates with criminal records and the reasons for their selection in polls.
- This is mandatory at both the central and state levels.
Way Forward
- Legal Reforms: Amend the RPA, 1951, to bar candidates from contesting once charges are framed in serious offences (as suggested by the Law Commission, 2015).
- Lifetime Ban: Extend disqualification beyond six years post-conviction to a permanent bar, ensuring long-term deterrence.
- Judicial Reforms: Expand Fast-Track Courts and strictly monitor the 12 existing special courts for MPs/MLAs to reduce case pendency.
- Electoral Reforms: Make access to state subsidies, bonds, and media slots conditional on candidates’ clean records (ECI proposal, 2022).
- Institutional Reforms: Ensure political party accountability, mandate internal disciplinary committees to screen candidates and publish reasons for giving tickets to tainted ones.
- Voter-centric Reforms: Nationwide campaigns (in local languages) to highlight the cost of electing tainted candidates.
Criminalisation of politics is the bane of society and a negation of democracy, eroding institutions and public trust. The way forward lies in stricter disqualification laws, transparent funding, fast-track courts, and voter awareness to restore integrity in governance.
Reference: The Hindu
PMF IAS Pathfinder for Mains – Question 332
Approach
- Introduction: Write a brief introduction about the criminalisation of politics by mentioning the latest data.
- Body: Examine the linkage between politics and crime in India, the impact and reforms necessary to ensure transparency and accountability in political funding.
- Conclusion: Emphasis on the antidote with the future course of action to restore democratic trust.
