India terms like clean politician or politics are just oxymoron. Political crimes or political offenses are offenses involving overacts or omissions, which prejudice the interest of the state, its government, and its political system. Some common political crimes include bribery, sedition, treason, theft, espionage, perjury, whistleblowing, and human rights violation. The connection between politics and crime has been continued since the period of tribal leadership. Political crimes are intended to harm the state, its political system, or its government. This brings us to the conclusion that all the crimes done by the politicians are not necessarily political. For example, if the governor assaults or abuses someone, that will be considered as the crime of domestic abuse. But if he gives bribe to a minister to hide something or to benefit some organization then it will be called political crime.
Intention and implementation
Criminalization of politics is often talked about when electoral reforms take place. The data is mostly highlighted when the candidates have increasing crime rates while contesting elections. However, the Supreme court and the Election Commission have called out for the change in laws and bring the reality of the candidates out who are winning from jail. The problem here is that the laws and policies for criminalization in politics are one dimensional. Only a few changes have been made in-laws that haven’t worked out so far. We make amendments and changes a lot but the gap between the intention and implementation somehow makes it quite difficult to reach its goal.
The quality of the candidates matters a lot. Dr. Rajendra Prasad once said-“If the people who are elected are capable and are men of character and integrity then they would be able to make the best even out of a defective constitution.” Our constitution does not specify what disqualifies an individual for becoming a candidate. But the Representation of the People Act, includes what can disqualify a person from becoming a candidate. The law does not bar individuals who have criminal cases pending against them from contesting elections. An individual punished with a jail term of more than two years cannot stand in an election for six years after the jail term has ended. If a lower court has convicted an individual, he cannot contest an election unless a higher court has overturned his conviction. Simply filing an appeal against the judgment of the lower court is not enough. In 2013, the apex court ruled that a sitting MP and MLA convicted of a jail term of two years or more would lose their seat in the legislature immediately. This judgment led to Lalu Prasad Yadav losing his membership to the Lok Sabha in the same year.[1]
The Vohra Committee report
It was for the first time that an official report clearly brought out that:
(a) crimes syndicates and mafia organizations have developed significant muscle and money power, and
(b) they were virtually running a parallel government pushing the state apparatus into irrelevance.
This is a frightening admission to make for all official committee but it does not state, how the situation has to be dealt with how criminalisation of politics and government can be overcome and ultimately eliminated altogether.
All that it suggests is setting up of a nodal agency which will provide one place where the intelligence and information relating to the activities of crime syndicates, and mafia organisation gathered by different agencies like Intelligence Bureau, Central Bureau of investigation and various agencies under the Department of Revenue could be brought together and monitored. Lack of coordination between various administrative agencies is a well-known shortcoming of our administrative system and this holds good in our system of intelligence gathering also. An internal coordinating agency should be looked upon as a normal, internal device of day-to-day working of administration and that such a device did not exist and had to be suggested by a committee a sad reflection on the state of our administration. But we have to go beyond intelligence gathering. The purpose, of intelligence gathering is to plumb into the depth of criminalisation, unravel its genesis, lay bare the root causes and work out comprehensive measures to root out corruption and criminalisation in politics, government and administration. The Vohra Committee report does not indicate how this can be accomplished.[2]
What are the reasons for criminalization of politics?
- Corruption
- Vote bank
- Lack of governance
The simplest way out of these problems are that the political parties should themselves should refuse ticket to the tainted. But the way politics work in India this might not bring a fruitful out com. For this the RA act should be amended to debar person against whom cases of heinous nature are pending from contesting elections. Last and least option we can consider is to run the fast track courts and let them decide about the tainted legislators quickly. ECI should have powers to audit the financial accounts of the political parties or the financial account of these parties should be bought under RTI Act.
The Supreme Court taking the timely decisions agreeing to the plea of the Election Commission of India. The immediate provocation finding says that 46% of members of parliament have criminal records. However, the number might be inflated by the minor offenses- “unlawful assembly” and “defamation” the genuine concern is that the current associate of Lok Sabha MPs has the most elevated (29%) extent of those with genuine pronounced criminal cases contrasted with its precedent cases.[3] Analysts have discovered that such up-and-comers with genuine records appear to do well despite their open picture, generally because of their capacity to back their own decisions and carry considerable assets to their gatherings. A few voters will in general view such applicants through a restricted crystal: of having the option to speak to their inclinations by snare or by a convict. Others don’t look to rebuff these candidates in cases where they are in the challenge with different competitors with comparable records. In any case, these unfortunate inclinations in the fair framework mirror a helpless picture of the idea of India’s state foundations and the nature of its elected representatives.
The Supreme Court has concocted various judgments on tending to this issue. It evacuated the legal security of indicted administrators from prompt exclusion in 2013, and in 2014, coordinated the culmination of preliminaries including elected representatives in a year. In 2017, it requested that the Centre casing a plan to name special courts to solely attempt arguments against politicians, and for political parties to pitch pending criminal cases looked by their opposing parties in 2018. Be that as it may, these have not been an obstacle to administrators with questionable certifications. Maybe what might do the stunt is a standard that prohibits applicants against whom charges have been encircled in court for genuine offenses, however, this is something for Parliament to consider as an amendment to the Representation of the People Act, 1951. This result, in any case, is as yet a pure fantasy given the synthesis of the Lower House with various agents confronting genuine cases. At last, this is a result of an auxiliary issue in the structural system and the Indian democracy and nature of the Indian state. While officially, the organizations of the state are available and dependent upon the constituent will of the individuals, meaningfully, they are still generally feeble and languid in administration and conveyance of open merchandise, which has permitted sceptical voters to choose applicants regardless of their questionable accreditations and for their capacity to deal with a support framework. While legal declarations on making it hard for the criminal contender to challenge are vital, just upgraded mindfulness and expanded fair interest could make the correct conditions for the decriminalization of governmental issues. One such case is Public Interest Foundation v. UOI
Public Interest Foundation v. UOI
25th September 2018, the Court delivered its judgement in the Electoral Disqualification case. The Court had to decide if persons ought to be disqualified from membership in legislative bodies when criminal charges are framed against them. Currently Section 8 of the Representation of Peoples Act only disqualifies persons when they are convicted of criminal charges.
The five-judge Bench unanimously decided that it cannot disqualify candidates, against whom criminal charges have been framed, from contesting elections. The Bench cited respect for the separation of powers. It recognized that it cannot introduce new rules regarding the disqualification of electoral candidates.
The Bench asked Parliament to make a law that prevents candidates accused of serious crimes from entering politics. The Bench suggested that such laws are necessary to ensure that voters can make informed choices about whom they choose to elect. The Bench concluded that informed choice is a cornerstone of a ‘strong and pure’ democracy.
The Court issued the following directions:
- Candidates must fill up forms containing all particulars.
- In said forms, criminal antecedents to be stated in bold.
- Candidates must inform the concerned political party of pending criminal cases against them.
4. Concerned political party to put up such criminal antecedents of candidates on party website.
5. Wide publicity by both candidates and parties in press and media of the criminal antecedents. Wide publication meaning at least thrice after filing of nominations.[4]
Talking about the political offenses in India like treason, sedition, espionage, etc., there are various sections which mention their crimes and also the punishment for the same. Treason, for waging war against the Government of India, The Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 121 reads as under: Whoever wages war against the Government of India, or attempts to wage such war, or abets the waging of such war shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.[5]
Section 124A of the IPC, which deals with sedition, states-
“Whoever, words, either spoken or written, or by signs, or by visible representation, or otherwise, brings or attempts to bring into hatred or contempt, or excites or attempts to excite disaffection towards the Government established by law in India shall be punished with imprisonment for life, to which fine may be added, or with imprisonment which may extend to three years, to which fine may be added, or with fine.”[6]
There are many things we have heard about political offenses and political crimes in India. As mentioned above a clean politician is such an oxymoron when we talk about India. But not only the politicians or political parties but also other organizations are indulged in such activities as if there is no such law that abides them to conduct them.
By-
Priyanshi Trivedi
[1]India ranked 80th in Corruption Perception Index, Economic Times, 23rd January, 2020, available athttps://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/india-ranked-80th-in-corruption-perception-index/articleshow/73560064.cms
[2]Gist of Important Articles from IIPA Journal: Criminalisation of Polities beyond Vohra Committee, P. R. Dubhashi, IAS Exam Portal, available at https://iasexamportal.com/study-kit/gist-of-iipa-journals/criminalisation-of-polities-beyond-vohra-committee
[3]Lalu loses Lok Sabha seat, Business Line, 23rd November 2017, available a thttps://www.thehindubusinessline.com/economy/Lalu-loses-Lok-Sabha-seat/article20679487.ece
[4]Criminalisation of Politics, Supreme Court Observer, available at https://www.scobserver.in/court-in-review/criminalisation-of-politics?slug=public-interest-foundation-vs-uoi
[5]https://indiankanoon.org/doc/58135593/
[6]Sedition cases in India: What data says, Pooja Dantewadia, Vishnu Padmanabhan, LiveMint, 25th February 2020, available athttps://www.livemint.com/news/india/sedition-cases-in-india-what-data-says-11582557299440.html
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in the articles on this website are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect or represent the views and opinions held by the website owner.