Banning convicted politicians is like painting over the cracks; it may improve appearances, but unless the foundation is strengthened through voter awareness and literacy, faster trials, police integrity in investigations, and strict political accountability, the decay will continue

A criminal today, a leader tomorrow — can democracy afford such irony? A fresh public interest litigation in the Supreme Court has reignited this debate, seeking a lifetime disqualification for those found guilty of criminal offences. With concerns over the rising criminalisation of politics, the question remains — can democracy afford to let lawbreakers become lawmakers?

Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, the length of disqualification depends on the conviction. In cases of offences specifically listed, if someone is fined, they’re banned from elections for six years from the date of conviction. If sentenced to jail, the disqualification starts immediately and continues for six years after their release. For offences not specifically listed, if the sentence is at least two years, the same rule applies — banned during imprisonment plus six more years. While the PIL pushing for a lifetime ban hopes to clean up politics, the reality isn’t that simple.

Double jeopardy

The Centre argues that permanent disqualification is “too harsh”, and to some extent, it has a point. Punishment shouldn’t just punish — it should also rehabilitate and reform. As writer Oscar Wilde said, “Every saint has a past, and every sinner a future.” If someone has served their sentence and truly reformed, shouldn’t they get another chance? The Delhi high court, in Ashok Bind vs. The State (Government of NCT Delhi), suggested steps like therapy, education, and rehabilitation to support reformation, showing India’s shift toward a more reformative justice system.

There’s also the issue of double jeopardy. Article 20(2) of the Indian Constitution and treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prevent punishing someone twice for the same offence. If a convicted person has completed their sentence, is it fair to impose a lifetime electoral ban on them?

Political vendettas make things murkier. The Election Commission (EC) can shorten disqualification periods, often favouring those with influence. In 2019, Prem Singh Tamang’s six-year ban was cut to just 13 months, allowing him to contest elections despite a graft conviction. With a history of politically motivated cases and manipulated trials, should the system enable such misuse?

At the end of the day, democracy is about the people’s choice. Instead of a blanket ban, shouldn’t voters have the final say on whether a politician deserves a second chance?

Crime and punishment

But the other side of the argument is just as compelling. The criminalisation of politics is no longer a distant worry, it’s a harsh reality. As of March 2024, 44% of sitting MPs face criminal charges, and 5% are billionaires, according to the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). This highlights the troubling nexus between politics, crime, and money, where power shields individuals from accountability.

Corruption and abuse of power remain some of India’s biggest challenges, reflected in the country’s 93rd rank out of 180 in the Corruption Perceptions Index. Scandals like the 2G scam, which caused an estimated ₹1.76 lakh crore loss, show how deep-rooted financial corruption can drain the economy.

Public trust in politicians has taken a massive hit. A 2018 Pew Research Centre survey found that 64% of Indians believe most politicians are corrupt. When convicted leaders continue to shape laws, it’s no surprise that many prioritise personal gain over public welfare.

Across the world, approaches vary. Singapore disqualifies MPs for five years if convicted of a crime resulting in at least one year of imprisonment or a fine exceeding $10,000. In the US, there’s no law preventing convicted or incarcerated persons from running for office. In the UK, under the Representation of the People Act, 1981, an MP sentenced to more than one year in prison is disqualified. Once you are released from prison, you are not prevented from standing for election as an MP and if 10% of voters in the constituency sign a recall petition, the MP loses the seat.

Balanced approach

Instead of an outright lifetime ban, a more balanced approach could work better. Those convicted of severe crimes like rape, terrorism, or large-scale corruption could face a permanent ban, while courts could assess rehabilitation in other cases before allowing a return to politics. Additionally, taking lessons from the UK model, voters could be empowered through recall petitions, giving the electorate the power to remove a politician who fails to meet ethical standards.

Ultimately, criminalisation in politics is like termites in a house — by the time you see the damage, the rot has already spread deep. Banning convicted politicians is like painting over the cracks; it may improve appearances, but unless the foundation is strengthened through voter awareness and literacy, faster trials, police integrity in investigations, and strict political accountability, the decay will continue.

True reform means treating the problem at its core. Without this deep cleansing, Indian democracy will keep crumbling from within. After all, “Yatha raja, tatha praja (If the leaders themselves are criminals, how can the nation remain virtuous).