In Indian politics, the more things change, the more they stay the same. The criminalisation of politics, prevalent in the pre-LPG era, now dominates the post-LPG landscape. With 46 per cent of MPs in the 18th Lok Sabha facing criminal charges, this troubling trend demands urgent reform. Political parties continue to field candidates with criminal backgrounds, highlighting the critical need for comprehensive electoral reforms

For Indian politics, it is said that the more it changes, the more it remains the same. If the quintessential evidence of the same could be seen in the license-permit raj in a pre-LPG era, the criminalisation of politics offers the best example in the post-LPG era. The results of the 18th Lok Sabha have stuck to the norm rather than shining as an exception.

As per data from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), 46 per cent of MPs elected in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections (251 out of 543) have pending criminal cases against them, with 31 per cent (170) charged with serious criminal offences, including murder, attempt to murder, and crimes against women to name a few. The corresponding figure for the 17th Lok Sabha stood at 233 (43 per cent) for criminal charges which included 159 (29 per cent) facing serious criminal charges. Thus the tsunami of criminalisation of politics, far from ebbing, is only rising. This troubling trend is a cause for worry. One must not forget George Bernard Shaw. “Power doesn’t corrupt men; fools, however, if they get into a position of power, corrupt power.”.

Thanks to Nash Equilibrium, all major political parties, big or small, national or regional, irrespective of ideology and structure, do not shy away from fielding candidates with criminal backgrounds. While 39 per cent of 240 winning candidates of the BJP have criminal charges, the figure stands at 49 per cent for the Indian National Congress. The figures are on the higher side when it comes to regional parties. On 24th of June, when the candidates take the solemn oath/affirmation in Lok Sabha, 45 per cent of All India Trinamool Congress MPs, 50 per cent of TDP MPs, 57 per cent of Samajwadi Party MPs, 59 per cent of DMK MPs, 71 per cent of Shiv Sena MPs will be flaunting criminal charges. The new Parliament had deserved a better start.

This troubling statistic is a matter of serious introspection. Such figures only reinforce the tendency of parties to field candidates with criminal anecdotes. These MPs were elected less for their touch/connection with society and more due to their money and muscle power. It is only logical they would perpetuate themselves. The 3Ds of democracy – debate, discussion, and decision would only degenerate in disruption, disruption and more disruption. It is no wonder that political apathy, disillusionment with the political system, and a decline in voting percentage among educated youth correlate with the decline of Parliament.

For a country whose wounds of Naxalbari have yet not healed, the fears of Churchill concerning the House of Commons of the 1930s are poignant – “The House of Commons as a vehicle of the popular will has steadily declined in public repute…” and “I am deeply anxious that its walls shall not be undermined by slow decay or overthrown by violent battering-rams”. The task, therefore, is cut out. A lot is written about the necessity and urgency of land, labour, and capital reforms, but what India needs most urgently is the mother of all reforms – Electoral Reforms.

The MPs certainly have criminal records, but they cannot be said to be without brains. The land, labour, and capital reforms will unleash the animal spirits of the Indian economy, thereby bringing economic, social and political empowerment to millions. In a country with a high need for power and affiliation, the empowerment of the electorate will cause a relative decline, at least perceptibly, in the power of the representatives. Recall the good old days, when you needed a source of MP saheb for a telephone connection. Come telecommunication revolution, MP Saheb has lost a constituency that was earlier dependent on him. Thus above everything, lack of political will is a major reason behind the failure of these reforms. Hence electoral reforms, to ensure that those candidates for whom public office is a mission are chosen, is the way forward.

But this road again leads to a dead end, for a House with 46 per cent MPs with criminal records cannot be expected to bring a law that can potentially thwart their electoral bids. It is inconceivable that such MPs, or the parties that depend on them, will upset their apple cart by undertaking any serious electoral reform to check the criminalisation of politics. It is worth asking if the MPs would cut the tree by the branch they are sitting on. Perhaps not.

Non-representative bodies like the Election Commission, Law Commission, and National Commission to Review Working of Constitution (NCRWC) have done some commendable work. A common suggestion has been to disqualify those candidates against whom charges of heinous offences have been framed by a competent court of law. A genuine fear has been raised that in a vindictive and fractured polity like ours, the government in power would level false charges against candidates of an opposite party only to disqualify them from contesting. The concerns are genuine but manageable. Firstly, the premise for disqualification is not the existence of FIR/allegation, but the farming of charges that is to say that the trial has started. False and frivolous cases would be nipped off in the bud leading to discharge and bad publicity of the incumbent government, serving as an in-built deterrence. Secondly, considering such a possibility, the Law Commission prescribed a window that cases in the 6 months leading to the election should not be considered for the proposed disqualification as the chances of false and frivolous cases are higher in the said period.

It is worth considering the dividends of such a move. First and foremost, a hopeful candidate will not engage in such heinous offences. Secondly, a false case culminating in discharge or acquittal would earn the government bad publicity and hence censure of the people. Thirdly, as per the status quo, a candidate charged with a criminal case deliberately delays the case. Under the proposed recommendation, (s)he will vie for an early disposal so that he is acquitted and becomes eligible to contest or even if he is convicted, his conviction starts at an earlier date so that he becomes re-eligible early.

Despite stiff resistance and non-cooperation from Parliament and Executive, Judiciary has carried the flag of electoral reforms through decisions in ADR vs Union of India (2002) mandating disclosure of criminal records, PUCL vs Union of India (2013) mandating NOTA, Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013) leading to instant disqualification of candidates with conviction, Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India (2018) directing parties to publish criminal antecedents of their candidates by print and electronic media and also on their websites along with reasons for selecting such candidates. However, the rising trend of criminalisation of politics, especially the election of separatists in the 18th Lok Sabha, shows that such decisions have achieved little success.

The words of Cassius – “The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, but in ourselves, that we are underlings.” – are true even in the Indian context. In the final analysis, we the people have to reject such candidates and send the committed and able candidates to the temple of democracy. But whether it was Sati abolition or Dowry prohibition, prevention of child marriage or uprooting of open defecation, India has always preferred top-down intervention to create a fertile ground for bottom-up revolution. There is no reason why the institutions should wait indefinitely for the enlightened consciousness of the electorate to arise.