Elections are the nerve centre of democratic politics. They bestow power on certain individuals charged with representing the will of the people in legislature. But can an individual of questionable integrity, charged with criminal cases, be given the opportunity to represent the interest of the citizenry? Is it in the fairness of electoral system to allow such person/s to determine the political outcome in democracy?

The recent judgments of Supreme Court in Public Interest Foundation v Union of India (2018) and Lok Prahari v Election Commission of India (2018) failed to address these questions. In fact, the apex court, in the first case, appealed to the rational sense of parliamentarians to bring in legislature to disqualify candidates charged with criminal cases. In the second case, the court reiterated its earlier decisions not to disqualify legislators if the conviction is stayed.

Whatever may be the reasoning of such pronouncements, the court lost an opportunity to correct the inherent imbalance of power between criminally tainted representatives and intimidated voters. In other words, the criminally tainted individuals will continue to abuse the weaknesses of our electoral laws to not only gain political power, but also to reinforce the vulnerability of people for eternity and to legitimise their activities in the realm of crime.

Guarded assumptions and safeguards

What are the assumptions offered to avoid the decriminalisation of politics? First, criminal cases filed against the rival candidates may be politically motivated. Second, criminal cases may be framed even if the candidate is involved in legitimate political agitations. Third, the ruling regime may try to ensure electoral victory by engineering criminal charges against the opponent candidates.

One cannot deny the merits in each of these assumptions. But can we afford to hold our electoral system hostage to multiple varieties of criminal abuse and manipulation? If not, then, why do we create conditions and opportunities for criminal interference in the electoral process of our country?

A fine balance should have been created by the apex court by giving serious thought to certain ‘safeguards’ already proposed by the Election Commission in 1998:

1) Candidates framed with heinous offences like murder, dacoity, rape, kidnaping or moral turpitude be barred from contesting elections

2) Such cases must have been registered before six months of the election

3) The court should have framed the charges punishable with minimum of five years’ imprisonment

The recommendations of the law commission in 1999, in its 170th report and National Commission for Review of the Working of the Constitution in 2002 were more or less on the same lines.

Rising political criminality and judicial intervention

Sadly, as per the report of Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) on September 25, 2018, 115 Lok Sabha MPs (21% of the total) and 20 Rajya Sabha MPs (9%) are facing serious criminal cases. Out of 4,083 MLAs analysed by ADR, 891 MLAS (22%) are facing serious criminal charges. There are 48 MPs and MLAs against whom the cases of for crimes against women have been filed; 58 MPs and MLAs are facing cases related to hate speech; 64 MPs and MLAs are facing kidnapping charges; and 56 MPs and MLAs are facing cases related to murder. Many are charged with multiple offences.

The specific danger posed to the democratic processes from such elected representatives is their ability to use their power to assert influence over law-making, public officials and institutions like police and investigative agencies to their advantage. Is the rise of such criminality not leading to the decomposition of our democratic system?

Undoubtedly, there is a fundamental flaw in the use of adversarial doctrine (i.e. a person is innocent until proven guilty) in political context. It is largely because a candidate charged with heinous crimes takes advantage of “presumption of innocence” to contest elections and later takes oath of allegiance to the constitution and the law as members of legislature and ministers. It is nothing but a fraud on the constitution.

Also read: SC Rules Against Barring Politicians Facing Criminal Charges From Contesting Elections

In the past, in Lily Thomas v Union of India (2013), the Supreme Court strengthened the parameters of qualification by declaring Section 8(4) of Representation of People Act, 1951 as ultra vires of the constitution. The apex court proactively held that any legislator/parliamentarian convicted of a crime and awarded a minimum of two-year imprisonment loses membership of the house with immediate effect and a person, who is in jail or in police custody, cannot contest election to legislative bodies.

Therefore, a legitimate expectation was created in Public Interest Foundation v Union of India, which pleaded that where a person has been accused of serious criminal charges and where the court is prima facie satisfied about his/her involvement in the crime and consequently charges have been framed against such person, then in such cases, keeping the person out of the electoral arena would work as a reasonable restriction in the larger public interest.

However, the bench misplaced this opportunity with  un-pragmatic hope that the legislature, in its wisdom, will take appropriate measures under Article 102(1)(e) and that the judiciary should not cross the ‘Lakshman rekha‘. The court found language employed in Section 7(b) read with Sections 8 to 10A of the 1951 Act, unambiguous and complete. Hence, no intervention was required from the judiciary.

In another setback to people’s legitimate expectation, the Supreme Court in Lok Prahari v. Election Commission of India, while relying on its previous decisions in Ravi Kant Patil and Lily Thomas, avowed its stand that upon the stay of a conviction by appellate court under Section 389 of the CrPC, the disqualification under Section 8 will not operate.

Failed adversarial system

Regrettably, the criminal courts of our country creep in slow-motion – the procedure is complex, the dockets are hefty, the service of process is tardy and, still more frustrating, there are appeals upon appeals and revisions and supervisory jurisdictions, baffling and baulking speedy termination of prosecutions. Leisurely justice, the long-drawn-out criminal proceedings, hardly carries conviction. Even if it carries, human memory disremembers the gravity of crimes committed.

We must agree that the gradual loss of citizen’s confidence in the rule of law is equally conditioned by seeing their elected representatives continuing to hold law-making offices despite credible criminal charges against them. Courts are less to blame than the code made by parliament and governments are guilty of denying or delaying basic amenities for the judiciary to function smoothly. Justice has become a Cinderella of sorts in our constitutional arrangement.

Also read: Review: Why Criminals Enter Politics in India

But unfortunately, parliamentary and pre-legislative exercises spread over several years had hardly done any-thing radical to remove this vested illicit interest. In fact, the parliament has tried to dilute the Supreme Court’s 2002 judgment known as the ADR judgment requiring candidates to declare their criminal offences, assets and liabilities, and educational qualification by inserting two new sections (33A and 33B). But the Supreme Court struck down section 33B and reiterated its earlier pronouncements in 2003. Therefore, the court, instead of being finical about absolute processual equality, must be creative in innovating procedures compelled by special situations.


Citizens, upon seeing see the fortunes bestowed on these favoured species when they violate the norms of criminal law and get placed in the legislature or even as ministers, lose faith in the system itself. The rule of law turns into rhetoric: ‘show me the man and I will show you the law’.

The very concept of public power carries with it a great deal of trust and accountability in a people-oriented constitutional scheme and place the holders of public power on a different equilibrium. The dilution of alleged adversarial principle in the larger public interest and treating legislators as a class by itself would mollify the doctrine of reasonable classification and hence would not amount to violation of Article 14 of the constitution, which prohibits class legislation, but permits reasonable classification. The doctrine of presumption of innocence as contested by the petitioners is confined to criminal law and that any proceeding prior to conviction, such as framing of charge for instance, can become the basis to entail civil liability of penalty.

Therefore, debarring a person facing charges of serious nature from contesting an election does not lead to the creation of an offence but a distinct civil restriction. Framing of a charge is done after the allegations and evidence have been judicially scrutinised and the competent court has applied its judicial mind and therefore, the apex court’s failure to push forward the clean-up undertaking in the Public Interest Foundation and Lok Prahari case, not only outrages the rule of law but also deepens the crisis of legitimacy of our democracy. Eventually, it will turn out to be a place for master criminals and tainted Caesars with public office as protective mantle.

© Association for Democratic Reforms
Privacy And Terms Of Use
Donation Payment Method