Introduction (00:08 – 00:22)

Hello everyone, my name is Bipasha Nath, and I am a Program Associate at ADR. Welcome to our new podcast on Publication of Reasons Given for Selection of Candidates with Criminal Cases by Political Parties (Format C7) – Part 1.

 

Overview (00:23 – 04:56)

On 13^th February 2020, the Supreme Court had directed political parties to list out reasons on their website including their social media platforms for nominating candidates with criminal background and why other individuals without criminal antecedents were not selected, within 72 hours of the selection of candidates with tainted background. As per these guidelines, the reasons for such selection had to be with reference to qualifications, achievements, and merit, instead of the “winnability” scope of the candidate concerned. It also became mandatory for political parties to publish criminal antecedents and reasons for their selection on at least three different dates from the date following the last date of withdrawal of candidatures and up to two days before the date of poll. The details must be in font size of at least 12 and should be placed suitably in newspapers. In case of declaration in TV Channels, the same should be completed before a period of 48 hours ending with hours fixed for conclusion of poll. These must be presented in a format specifically provided by the Election Commission of India. In case of non-compliance by the candidate/political parties, the returning officers must give a written reminder to them, and in the event of non-compliance until the end of the elections, the returning officer is required report to the state's Chief Electoral Officer, who will then intimate the ECI. The final decision would be taken by the ECI on these matters. 

After the Bihar State Assembly elections, it was observed that a number of political parties had not submitted reasons for selection of candidates with criminal cases, this was in contempt of the SC judgement of February 2020. After hearing a PIL filed on this issue, the Supreme Court gave its judgement on 10^th August 2021, taking a lenient approach. Supreme Court penalised  Janata Dal United, Rashtriya Janta Dal, Lok Janshakti, INC, BJP,  BSP, CPI,  and Rashtriya Lok Samta Party (that is, political parties that partially complied with the regulations) and directed them to deposit of Rs 1 lakh each in the account created by the ECI, and Rs 5 lakh  to be deposited by CPI (M) and NCP (since they had not complied at all). Further, the ECI was directed to act promptly in future so that the Supreme Court may take necessary action at the earliest.

In view of publication of criminal cases against candidates selected by Political parties, Supreme Court also revised its earlier directions in the following manner –

• Political parties are to publish information regarding criminal antecedents of candidates on the homepage of their websites, thus making it easier for the voter to get to the information that has to be supplied. It will also become necessary now to have on the homepage a caption which states “candidates with criminal antecedents”; (ii) The ECI was directed to create a dedicated mobile application containing information published by candidates regarding their criminal antecedents, so that at one stroke, each voter gets such information on his/her mobile phone

 

• The ECI was directed to carry out an extensive awareness campaign to make every voter aware about his right to know and the availability of information regarding criminal antecedents of all contesting candidates. This shall be done across various platforms, including social media, websites, TV ads, prime time debates, pamphlets, etc. A fund must be created for this purpose within a period of 4 weeks into which fines for contempt of Court may be directed to be paid

 

• For the aforesaid purposes, the ECI was also directed to create a separate cell which will also monitor the required compliances so that this Court can be apprised promptly of non-compliance by any political party of the directions contained in this Supreme Court’s orders, as fleshed out by the ECI, in instructions, letters and circulars issued in this behalf  

 

• The details which are required to be published, shall be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate and not prior to two weeks before the first date of filing of nominations

 

• If such a political party fails to submit such a compliance report with the ECI, the ECI shall bring such noncompliance by the political party to the notice of SC as being in contempt of SC’s Orders/directions, which shall in future be viewed very seriously  

 

 

Relevance of Topic (04:57 – 07:42)

In light of the undesirable practices that led to the selection of 233 (43%) MPs with criminal cases, 159 (29%) with serious criminal cases, and 475 (88%) crorepati MPs after the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, the Supreme Court judgement is of utmost significance. It allows scope for greater awareness for the voting community.

ADR’s analysis of Format C7 released by political parties on their official websites for the Bihar (2020), Assam, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, Kerala, and Puducherry Assembly elections (2021) has revealed several discrepancies. Many political parties, regardless of their current political outreach and popularity, did not have a functional website to publish details of candidates with criminal background along with reasons, or there were language barriers (with regard to regional political party websites) which prevented easy access of information. On the other hand, a few political parties that did have a website link, had not bothered to maintain this crucial information and/or had inaccessible webpages. There were yet others that had a separate section dedicated for election information, but they either failed to upload necessary documents or had dysfunctional website tabs. Notably, even among the few political parties that published Format C7’s within the stipulated period, there were some grave problems which emerged upon analysis of the information provided through these affidavits. These included

1. Justifying fielding of tainted candidates with unfounded and baseless reasons like chances of winning, popularity of the person, does good social work, offences not being grave in nature, cases are politically motivated
2. Repetition of reasons outlined through forms, not just for candidates within a single political party, but also for those contesting on behalf of other parties
3. Publication of Format C2 (which deals with information on criminal cases pending against candidates) but not Format C7 (which deals with information regarding pending criminal cases along with reasons for selection)

Other discrepancies include omission of crucial information on affidavits, such as name of candidate and reason for selection (which is the primary purpose of Format C7), as well as submission of data in incorrect (letter) format. This is especially of concern in light of the total number of pending cases against the candidates in question, and their categorisation under ‘serious criminal cases’.

 

Key findings (07:44 – 17:13)

In the West Bengal State Assembly elections, 10 political parties were analysed by ADR. Out of 1220 contesting candidates analysed, 433 (35%) candidates belonging to the aforementioned political parties have declared criminal cases against themselves and 350 (29%) have declared serious criminal cases against themselves.

• Out of 433 candidates with criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 314 (73%) candidates
• Out of 350 candidates with serious criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 260 (74%) candidates
• For 119 (27%) candidates with criminal background, no reasons for their selection have been provided by political parties

The 5 most commonly stated reasons given by political parties contesting the West Bengal elections include the following –

• For the section on ‘Reasons for selection of candidate with criminal background’, statements such as The candidate has been falsely implicated out of political vengeance; The candidate is popular among the poorer and weaker sections/the people and party workers; Party workers unanimously want the candidate to be selected; The candidate has been an active social (and political) worker; and The candidate has tirelessly worked for his/her constituency, were given
• For the section on ‘Reasons as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected’, statements such as The candidate is deeply committed to people’s welfare; The candidate is popular due to his/her longstanding work for welfare of people; A majority of the party members support his/her candidature; The candidate is well respected and is popular in the constituency; and The candidate is well-known amongst the youth, were given

Out of all the contesting political parties and candidates with criminal cases analysed by ADR, AITC did not provide reasons for 10 (8%) out of 118 candidates, AIMIM did not furnish the same for 5 (100%) out of 5 candidates, BJP did not publish for 3 (2%) out of 168 candidates, CPI(M) did not publish for 81 (100%) out of 81 candidates, BSP did not publish for 5 out of 5 candidates (100%), INC did not publish for 2 (6%) out of 35 candidates, SUCI (C) did not for 9 (82%) out of 11 candidates, and JU(D) and LJP did not publish reasons for 2 (100%) out of 2 candidates each.

 

In the Tamil Nadu State Assembly elections, 12 political parties were analysed by ADR. Out of 787 contesting candidates analysed, 322 (41%) candidates belonging to the aforementioned political parties have declared criminal cases against themselves and 143 (18%) candidates belonging to the aforementioned political parties have declared serious criminal cases against themselves. 5 candidates had a published Format C7 with but no criminal cases have been registered against them.

• Out of 322 candidates with criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 166 (52%) candidates
• Out of 143 candidates with serious criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 64 (45%) candidates
• For 156 (48%) candidates with criminal background, no reasons for their selection have been provided by political parties
• For 1 candidate belonging to DMK, ‘reason for selection’ has not been provided, but ‘reason as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates’ was provided

The 5 most commonly stated reasons given by political parties contesting the West Bengal elections include the following –

• For the section on ‘Reasons for selection of candidate with criminal background’, statements such as The Party earnestly believes that the case has been wrongly foisted on the candidate and that the Candidate shall be acquitted in the case; The candidate has been functioning to protect the interest and rights of public; The candidate has earned good faith among the public; and the candidate has a good reputation; The Candidate is dedicatedly involved in many welfare activities; and The candidate is a Sitting MLA from this Constituency and also Social Worker, were given
• For the section on ‘Reasons as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected’, statements such as For reasons mentioned above, the candidate is in a better position to represent and serve the people of the constituency and the Party than the others who opted to contest; The others who had opted had other limitations in terms of other personal commitments; The cases registered against this candidate are relating to the agitations to protect the rights of the public and during his social service; Among other candidates, this candidate is found more suitable to function as a public representative to ensure their rights and liberties; and The candidate is not a criminal, and was falsely implicated, were given

Out of the political parties and candidates with criminal cases analysed by ADR, AIADMK did not provide reasons for 45 (100%) out of 45 candidates, Amma Makkal Munnettra Kazagham did not furnish the same for 60 (97%) out of 62 candidates, BJP did not do so for 15 (100%) out of 15 candidates, CPI and CPI (M) did not publish for 4 (100%) and 3 (100%) out of 4 and 3 candidates respectively, DMK did not publish for 11 (8%) out of 136 candidates, Makkal Needhi Maiam did not publish for 9 out of 27 candidates (33%), SDPI and SHS did not publish for 5 (100%) and 2 (100%) out of 5 and 2 candidates respectively.

 

In the Kerala State Assembly elections, 6 political parties were analysed by ADR. Out of 326 contesting candidates analysed, 235 (72%) candidates belonging to the aforementioned political parties have declared criminal cases against themselves and 113 (35%) candidates belonging to the aforementioned political parties have declared serious criminal cases against themselves.

• Out of 235 candidates with criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 144 (61%) candidates
• Out of 113 candidates with serious criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 82 (73%) candidates
• For 91 (39%) candidates with criminal background, no reasons for their selection have been provided by political parties
• For 1 candidate belonging to INC, ‘reason for selection’ has not been provided, but ‘reason as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates’ was provided

The 5 most commonly stated reasons given by political parties contesting the West Bengal elections include the following –

• For the section on ‘Reasons for selection of candidate with criminal background’, statements such The candidate is a well-known social activist; Candidate is a committed social worker having put up decades in social service; Candidate has good reputation in society; Most of the cases against candidate are out of political vendetta; and The candidate is a sitting MLA, were given
• For the section on ‘Reasons as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected’, statements such as Most of the cases are arising out of political vendetta; The candidate is associated with the people of his/her area for local development; A majority of the party members support his/her candidature; The proposed candidate is the best person to represent the constituency among those considered; and The case against the candidate is not grave and politically motivated, were given

Out of the political parties and candidates with criminal cases analysed by ADR, BJP did not provide reasons for 6 (8%) out of 77 candidates, CPI did not furnish the same for 10 (100%) out of 10 candidates, CPI(M) did not do so for 49 (100%) out of 49 candidates, INC did not publish for 3 (4%) out of 77 candidates, IUML did not publish for 18 (100%) out of 18 candidates, and Kerala Congress (M) did not publish reasons for 4 (100%) out of 4 candidates.

 

Conclusion (17:14 – 15:54)

Similar findings have been arrived at by ADR for Assembly elections held in Assam and Puducherry in 2021 and Bihar in 2020. We have now come to the end of this podcast. However, we will be sharing more updates on reasons given by political parties for selecting candidates with criminal background as well as the observations and recommendations made by ADR, in our next podcast. So make sure you subscribe to the podcast on our website: adrindia.org or write to us at [email protected] with your feedback. We will be back soon with another amazing episode. So stay tuned, and thank you for listening.

*****************