An analysis by ADR and NEW reveals that most political parties have been continuously doling out election tickets to candidates who have declared charges of promoting enmity between religious groups, destruction of religious places and committing acts intended to hurt religious sentiments

During the Lok Sabha elections of 2009 and various State assembly elections since 2008, out of the 4,807 elected Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs), 1,460 or 30% have declared criminal cases against them, out of which 688 or 14% have been declared serious criminal cases. However, only 24 out of the 4,807 MPs and MLAs admitted that they have been convicted, at some point in a court of law, reveals an analysis by Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch (NEW).

Were the staggering figures the reason behind the Union Government to bring out an Ordinance to protect convicted MPs and MLAs? Earlier this week, in order to nullify the Supreme Court judgement that erased statutory protection earlier available to MPs and MLAs, the government brought out an ordinance. In its judgement on 10th July, the Apex Court had said if an MP or MLA was/is convicted in a serious crime and sentenced to two years imprisonment or more, he/she would be disqualified immediately.

Calling the move to bring out an ordinance by the Cabinet as 'making convicted law-makers as show-pieces of white elephants', noted Right to Information (RTI) activist Subhash Chandra Agrawal said, "This means that the nation will have to bear uselessly on the heavy dose of privileges available to these white elephants from now onwards to be kept as show-pieces in the temples of democracy. The Union Cabinet has left no stone unturned to prove that India has a unique type of democracy, where it is a system for the politicians, by the politicians and of the politicians. President Pranab Mukherjee shouldrise to the occasion by refusing to sign anti-public Ordinance."

Replying to Mr Agrawal's email Fali S Nariman, senior advocate to the Supreme Court and president of the Bar Association of India, said it must be checked first if there is any precedent of a Bill pending in Parliament which then got referred to a Select Committee and, then during a recess, got pushed through as an Ordinance.

"The Ordinance route versus Bill-in-Parliament-route is an either/or exercise. Otherwise the Executive would be doing indirectly what it could not do directly: a pending Bill referred to a Select Committee cannot be converted into an Ordinance since the wish of the House is that the pending Bill requires maturer consideration before being enacted as law. The effect of an Ordinance under Article 123(2) is that it ’shall have force and effect as an Act of Parliament’–something totally inconsistent with the existing fact viz a pending Bill already referred to a Select Committee for further consideration," Mr Nariman said.

Coming back to the elected representatives, as per the analysis by ADR and NEW, out of the total 47,389 candidates who have contested various elections since 2008, only 155 or 0.3% have declared, in their affidavits, that they have been convicted at some point in acourt of law.

However, not all convictions lead to disqualification of sitting MPs or MLAs. Only convictions related to the cases registered under those violations mentioned in sections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) come under the purview of the Supreme Court judgement.

According to the report, it is possible that a candidate contesting an election may be refraining from declaring conviction in his/ her affidavit once an appeal, in a higher court, is admitted challenging the conviction. "In such a case this candidate may merely mention that an appeal is pending in a court and may not declare the conviction in the appropriate section of the affidavit. It is also possible that candidates may be suppressing or hiding the conviction altogether because as of now there is no reliable mechanism in place to scrutinise these affidavits," the report says.Sitting MPs with cases under IPC 153A: 
 

11 Sitting MPs have declared cases under IPC Section 153A
 

9 out of the 11 MPs are from the Lok Sabha and 2 are members of the Rajya Sabha
 

Sitting MLAs with cases under IPC 153A:
 

26 Sitting MLAs have declared cases under IPC Section 153A
 

Sitting MPs with cases under IPC 295A:
 

3 Sitting MPs have declared cases under IPC Section 295A
 

(There may be an overlap between MPs and MLAs with cases under IPC 295A, IPC 295 and IPC 153A i.e. they are not mutually exclusive)
 

Sitting MLAs with cases under IPC 295A:
 

9 Sitting MLAs from various states have declared cases under IPC Section 295A
 

(There may be an overlap between MPs and MLAs with cases under IPC 295A, IPC 295 and IPC 153A i.e. they are not mutually exclusive)
 

Sitting MPs with cases under IPC 295: 
 

3 Sitting MPs have declared cases under IPC Section 295
 

(There may be an overlap between MPs and MLAs with cases under IPC 295A, IPC 295 and IPC 153A i.e. they are not mutually exclusive)
 

Sitting MLAs with cases under IPC 295:

5 Sitting MLAs have declared cases under IPC Section 295
 

(There may be an overlap between MPs and MLAs with cases under IPC 295A, IPC 295 and IPC 153A i.e. they are not mutually exclusive)
 

Partywise MPs and MLAs with cases under IPC 153A:
 

Among all parties:

14 BJP MPs and MLAs (7 MPs and 7 MLAs);

5 AIMIM MPs and MLAs (1 MP and 4 MLAs);

4 MPs and MLAs from SP (1 MP and 3 MLAs);

4 MLAs from TRS;

2 MLAs from JD(U);

1 MLA each from INC, DMK, RJD, PMK have declared cases under IPC Section 153A.

1 MP each from TDP and VCK has also declared cases under Section 153A
 

Statewise MPs and MLAs with cases under IPC 153A:
 

12 Uttar Pradesh MPs and MLAs (4 MPs from Lok Sabha, 1 MP from Rajya Sabha and 7 MLAs);
 

10 Andhra Pradesh MPs and MLAs (1 Lok Sabha MP, 1 Rajya Sabha MP and 8 MLAs);
 

4 MLAs from Bihar;
 

4 Karnataka MPs and MLAs (2 MPs and 2 MLAs);
 

3 Tamil Nadu MPs and MLAs (1 MP and 2 MLAs) have declared cases under IPC Section 153A
 

Partywise MPs and MLAs with cases under IPC 295A:
 

Among all parties:
 

5 BJP MPs and MLAs (1 MP and 4 MLAs);
 

5 AIMIM MPs and MLAs (1 MP and 4 MLAs) have declared cases under IPC Section 295A.
 

(There may be an overlap between MPs and MLAs with cases under IPC 295A, IPC 295 and IPC 153A i.e. they are not mutually exclusive)