Political parties have not provided any reason for the selection of 212 candidates with a criminal background who contested the Assembly polls in Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand Goa, Manipur and Punjab, according to poll rights body Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR).
In many cases, instead of reasons, a justification is put forward, ADR said.
ADR has analysed the Format C7 of 1,178 candidates, who contested the Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand Goa, Manipur and Punjab Assembly polls earlier this year.
For 212 candidates with a criminal background, no reason has been provided for their selection by the political parties.
In Uttar Pradesh, of the 827 candidates with criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 689 (83 per cent) and of the 623 candidates with serious criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 511 (82 per cent).
In Uttarakhand, of the 76 candidates with criminal antecedents, reasons have been furnished for 64 (84 per cent) and of the 43 candidates with serious criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 37 (86 per cent).
For 12 (16 per cent) candidates in Uttarakhand with a criminal background, no reason has been provided by the parties for their selection.
In Goa, of the 57 candidates with criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 28 (49 per cent) and of the 35 candidates with serious criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 19 (54 per cent).
For 29 (51 per cent) candidates with a criminal background in Goa, no reason has been provided by the parties for their selection.
In Manipur, of the 41 candidates with criminal antecedents, reasons have been furnished for 39 (95 per cent) and of the 31 candidates with serious criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 29 (94 per cent), the ADR said.
For two (5 per cent) candidates with a criminal background in Manipur, no reason for their selection has been provided by the parties.
Of the 177 candidates with criminal cases in Punjab, reasons have been furnished for 146 (82 per cent) and of the 120 candidates with serious criminal cases, reasons have been furnished for 104 (87 per cent).
For 31 (18 per cent) candidates with criminal antecedents in Punjab, no reason has been provided by the parties for their selection.
The report said under the column titled “Reasons as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected”, it is noticed that in most cases, instead of giving cogent answers to the question, a justification is put forward as to why the candidate in question was selected. For some candidates, it is mentioned that he or she was the best choice to win the election.
In 2020, the Madras High Court had not only asked the Centre to “enact a law to prohibit candidates with a criminal background contesting the elections to Parliament as well as state legislatures”, but had also emphasised that “the central government has to come out with a comprehensive legislation to prohibit persons with a criminal background from contesting elections to Parliament, state legislatures and local bodies”.
