PART II

Introduction (00:09)

Hello everyone, my name is Bipasha Nath, and I am a Program Associate at ADR. In this podcast, we will be discussing ADR’s findings and analysis of Publication of Reasons Given for Selection of Candidates with Criminal Cases by Political Parties (Format C7) – Part 2. Part 1 of the same can be accessed on our official website.

As you may recall from Part 1 of this podcast, 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. This directive was revised on 10^th August, 2021, with the current regulation requiring political parties to furnish reasons within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate and not prior to two weeks before the first date of filing of nominations.

Key findings (01:14)

In the Assam State Assembly elections, 17 political parties were analysed by ADR. Out of 489 contesting candidates analysed, 92 (19%) candidates belonging to the aforementioned political parties have declared criminal cases against themselves and 74 (15%) candidates belonging to the aforementioned political parties have declared serious criminal cases against themselves.

• Out of 92 candidates with criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 53 (58%) candidates
• Out of 74 candidates with serious criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 44 (59%) candidates
• For 39 (42%) 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 Assam elections include the following –

• For the section on ‘Reasons for selection of candidate with criminal background’, statements such as The selected candidate is a very hard worker and work for the development of his constituency and causes of people of the said constituency; The candidate is a grass root worker and a good organizer of the party; The candidate has not yet been convicted; Candidate has been engaged in social service for the people; and Candidate was found to have a good understanding of the constituency, were given
• For the section on ‘Reasons as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected’, statements such as No other such efficient individual has applied for before the party as per the norms of the party; None having the desired social background applied; The party firmly believes in fielding a candidate who can best represent the aspirations of the people of the constituency; and The candidate is a person of integrity the party has found him fit to be nominated in the 2021 Assembly election, were given

Out of the political parties and candidates with criminal cases analysed, AGP did not provide reasons for 4 (100%) out of 4 candidates, AIFB did not furnish the same for 1 (100%) out of 1 candidate, AIUDF did not do so for 5 (45%) out of 11 candidates, AIMF did not publish for 1 (100%) out of 1 candidate, AJP did not publish for 2 (17%) out of 12 candidates, Bhartiya Gana Parishad did not publish for 1 (100%) out of 1 candidate, Bodoland People’s Front did not publish for 2 (100%) out of 2 candidates, INC did not do so for 13 (45%) out of 29 candidates, JD (U) did not publish for 2 (100%) out of 2 candidates, National People’s Party, NCP, RPI(A), Voter’s Party International, The National Road Map Party of India, and SUCI(C) did not publish reasons for each of their respective candidates, and United People’s Party (L) did not do so for 1 (50%) out of 2 candidates.

In the Puducherry State Assembly elections, 12 political parties were analysed. Out of 161 contesting candidates analysed, 38 (24%) candidates belonging to the aforementioned political parties have declared criminal cases against themselves and 21 (13%) candidates belonging to the aforementioned political parties have declared serious criminal cases against themselves.

All contesting national or regional political parties, that were analysed, failed to furnish information on reasons for selection of candidates with criminal antecedents.

In the Bihar State Assembly elections 2020, which was also the first where electoral processes took place after the Supreme Court judgement, 5 political parties were analysed by ADR. Out of 454 contesting candidates analysed, 292 (64%) candidates belonging to the aforementioned political parties have declared criminal cases against themselves and 210 (46%) candidates belonging to the aforementioned political parties have declared serious criminal cases against themselves.

• Out of 292 candidates with criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 155 (53%) candidates
• Out of 210 candidates with serious criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 115 (55%) candidates
• For 137 (47%) candidates with criminal background, no reasons for their selection have been provided by political parties
• 1 candidate has a published Format C7 with but no criminal cases have been registered against him

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

• For the section on ‘Reasons for selection of candidate with criminal background’, statements such as The candidate is very popular; The candidate has done commendable work during the Covid-19 pandemic; The candidate is a social worker; The candidate has been worked among the downtrodden people and weaker sections of the society; Overwhelming majority of the party cadre in the constituency have supported his candidature, were given
• For the section on ‘Reasons as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected’, statements such as Same as "Reasons for selecting candidate with criminal background"; Candidate is very popular among his constituents and an overwhelming majority of the party workers in his/her constituency have recommended him/her to the party; Apart from the reason mentioned in s no. 2 the party workers of the area have also said that no other aspirant of the party in this constituency is as popular as the candidate; He is setting MLA & his/her probability of winning is higher than other candidates; The cases against the candidate are because of his antecedents as honest leader of people's movements, not criminal antecedents, were given

Out of the political parties analysed, information for BJP and INC candidates are unavailable, and JD (U) did not furnish the same for 16 (29%) out of 56 candidates with criminal cases.

Further details pertaining to reasons given for top 3 candidates with highest number of criminal cases, top 3 candidates with highest criminal cases whose Format C7 were not published, highest declared total assets and total income of top 3 candidates along with details of their criminal background, etc. can be accessed on our report.

In light of these findings, ADR has also observed the following –

• The stipulation that more people who are honest, fair, credible, capable and men of character and integrity, should contest elections and be the key policy makers, holds no ground in the Indian political system
• There is blatant contempt of the Supreme Court directions
• The magnitude of the problem surrounding money and muscle power in Indian electoral processes, in general, is quite severe – ADR’s analysis of pan-India data of all MPs and MLAs having criminal cases, out of 542 sitting MPs analysed, 232 (43%) have declared criminal cases, and 157 (29%) have serious criminal cases. With regard to 3980 sitting MLAs analysed by ADR, 1610 (40%) have declared criminal cases, and 1047 (26%) have serious criminal cases
• There is a well-defined and deeply entrenched nexus between money and muscle power which cannot be reprimanded by mere hypothetical hopes. There is no information available about any contempt action being taken against defaulting political parties. In reality, citizens are not sure whether the ECI has reported to the Supreme Court the non-compliance of its directions by some political parties in the recently held elections.
• There is no well-defined process in the selection of candidates by the political parties; there is no law for regulating the functioning of political parties; there is no way to penalize the office bearers of the political parties in case of any conflict or contravention with rules or laws. Political parties have blatantly refused to come under RTI Law; and tickets are given to the candidates for contesting elections on the sole basis of winnability factor.

Thus, ADR recommends the following measures to pave the way for suitable electoral and political reforms in India –

• There should be a strict criterion for selection of candidates by political parties, which does not allow the entry of candidates merely on their scope of winnability
• Problem of criminalization can be tackled if such tainted candidates are outrightly banned from entering the electoral process based on both stage and degree of crime. This can be achieved by disqualifying candidates from contesting elections to the public offices against whom ‘charges have been framed by court’ for having committed serious criminal offences punishable by imprisonment of at least 5 years, and the case is filed at least 6 months prior to the election in question
• There should be a permanent disqualification of candidates convicted for heinous crimes like murder, rape, smuggling, dacoity, kidnapping, robbery etc.
• A list detailing tainted candidates selected by the political parties along with such reasons for such selection should be e religiously prepared and submitted to the Supreme Court after every election and the same should be uploaded on ECI’s website for public inspection
• The Supreme Court of India being the ultimate custodian of “Justice and Rule of Law” should take note of the current situation and reprimand political parties and politicians for such contempt, complete lack of will, reprehensible predilection and absence of required laws. In addition, the Supreme Court should also immediately take a strict contempt action against political parties, their office bearers and candidates for blatantly bypassing its 25th September, 2018 and 13th February, 2020 orders
• Tax exemption given to the political parties under Section 13A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Section 29 C (4) of the Representation of People Act, 1951 should be cancelled for those parties who have deliberately sidelined the SC orders
• The Election Commission of India should invoke its powers to suspend or withdraw recognition of a recognized political party for its incessant failure and disobedience of the SC directions
• There should be a heavy financial penalty levied on political parties for making insufficient disclosures, invalid and common reasons, selection of candidates based on winnability, failing to submit the Compliance Report on time etc. Officer in-charge of a political party pertaining to submission of a compliance report should also be held accountable for such a breach
• ECI should also not hesitate from using its wide powers given under Article 324 of the Constitution. Since the power of superintendence, direction and control of elections lies with the Election Commission, therefore without causing any delay, the Commission should immediately report such default to the Supreme Court during each election. In addition, ECI must ensure that the Supreme Court’s directions are being truly implemented by political parties by taking concrete steps in the light of reasons given by political parties in Form C7 and C8, diligent publication of reasons in newspapers, T.V channels, party website etc. and strict and constant reminders by ROs to the defaulters
• Political party should annually file the information on criminal antecedents of their Office Bearers such as President, Secretary, General Secretary, Chairperson, Convenor, Treasurer etc. and make such records available to the public, including NIL records
• List of candidates contesting elections should be announced at least 3 months prior to elections and they should be required to submit affidavits stating specific reasons for changing/joining a particular party and approximate amount to be spent by them in the next elections and of the source thereof
• False affidavit should lead to immediate disqualification of the candidate
• More power should be given to ‘None of the above’ option to citizens while casting votes
• All pending cases against MPs and MLAs should be fast tracked and brought to conclusion within a period of one year as mandated by the Supreme Court orders dated 10th March, 2014 and 1st November, 2017
• Political parties must be brought under the ambit of RTI Act, and given the status of public authorities
• there is a dire need for a comprehensive legislation regulating the functioning of political parties, recognition of their party constitution, election at various levels of party organs, conditions for registration and de-registration, compulsory maintenance of accounts, women representation at organisational positions
• Mandatory provisions should be made to introduce inner-party democracy, transparent decision-making, ticket distribution, elections of office bearers, financial transparency and stronger organisational discipline within the political parties
• Elected MPs and MLAs should be required to submit an ‘Annual Report’ to their constituency giving details of their accomplishments for previous year and the plan for the next year
• In the case when no candidate gets the required number of votes, there should be a runoff between the top two candidates getting maximum votes
• Smaller political parties that do not have websites must submit the hard copies of Format C2 and Format C7 to CEO/ECI

Conclusion (15:39)

There is no dearth of solutions to curb the ever-growing problem of criminality in politics. What is required is the courage and will to do the same. Lawmakers will not frame laws that ban the unimpeded and unchecked entry of politicians with criminal cases. Constitutional bodies and institutions will continue to take refuge under reasons like ‘lack of power’. If you wish to learn more about ADR’s findings, log into the official website for report on ‘Analysis of Format C7 - Publication of Reasons Given for Selection of Candidates with Criminal Cases by Political Parties – West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Assam, and Puducherry Assembly Elections, 2021 and Bihar Assembly Election, 2020’.

For more updates about ADR’s findings and analysis, 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.

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