What are “Serious Criminal Charges”?
- Definition:
- Offences punishable with 5 years or more imprisonment, OR
- Non-bailable offences.
- Examples: Murder, rape, kidnapping, corruption, extortion, rioting, etc.
- Declared in self-sworn affidavits filed by candidates to the Election Commission (mandatory since Supreme Court ruling in ADR vs Union of India, 2002).
Relevance : GS 2(Democracy , Constitution ,Polity)
National Trends
- Lok Sabha (2009–2024):
- 2009 → 14% MPs with serious criminal cases.
- 2024 → 31% MPs with serious criminal cases (more than doubled).
- State Assemblies (2024):
- 29% MLAs face serious criminal charges (~1,200 MLAs).
- Indicates a rising criminalisation of politics.
State-Wise Analysis
- MPs (2024):
- Telangana → Highest share (71%).
- Bihar → 48%.
- Uttar Pradesh → Highest absolute number (34 MPs).
- MLAs (2024):
- Andhra Pradesh → Highest share (56%).
- Telangana → 50%.
- Uttar Pradesh → Highest absolute number (154 MLAs, 38% of total).
Why does this happen
- Electoral factors:
- Candidates with muscle and money power have higher winnability.
- Voters sometimes prefer such candidates for “protection” or local influence.
- Legal loopholes:
- Conviction (not charges) leads to disqualification (Representation of People Act, 1951).
- Cases drag for years; candidates contest despite multiple charges.
- Party incentives:
- Parties prioritise “winnability” over criminal record.
- Criminals often fund their own campaigns.
- Weak enforcement:
- Poor police/judicial capacity → cases pending for decades.
Consequences
- Democratic credibility: Declining public faith in institutions.
- Governance impact: Policy-making influenced by vested interests.
- Rule of law weakened: Lawmakers themselves accused of serious offences.
- Institutional capture: Politicians influence police, bureaucracy, and judiciary to delay/derail cases.
- Social fabric: Criminalisation linked with rise in violence, caste/communal politics.
Judicial & Institutional Responses
- Supreme Court directives:
- 2013 Lily Thomas case: Convicted legislators disqualified immediately.
- 2014 SC: Ordered EC to collect affidavits on criminal, financial, educational background.
- 2020 SC: Ordered parties to publish reasons for giving tickets to candidates with criminal cases (not just winnability).
- Election Commission efforts:
- Voter awareness campaigns (NOTA, background disclosures).
- But limited powers to reject nominations.
- Parliamentary inaction:
- No comprehensive law passed to debar charge-sheeted candidates (Law Commission 244th Report, 2014 had recommended this).
Way Forward
- Legal reforms:
- Amend RPA, 1951 to bar candidates with serious charges (framed by court, not just FIRs).
- Fast-track courts for speedy disposal of cases against politicians.
- Electoral reforms:
- State funding of elections to reduce dependence on money-criminal nexus.
- Stricter scrutiny of party candidate selection.
- Judicial reforms:
- De-clog criminal justice system → quick trial and conviction/acquittal.
- Political will:
- Parties must self-regulate by denying tickets to tainted candidates.
- Public pressure:
- Civil society + media vigilance.
- Voter awareness campaigns against criminal candidates.
