Earlier this week, while hearing a petition seeking a lifetime ban on convicted politicians, the Supreme Court of India voiced concerns over the current provision that disqualifies convicted legislators from contesting elections for only six years. The Bench, comprising Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan, underscored the inherent conflict of interest in permitting individuals with criminal backgrounds to return to the electoral fray after serving brief disqualifications. Furthermore, the judges lamented the sluggish functioning of ‘fast-track courts’ due to judicial vacancies and systemic inefficiencies, a situation that has contributed to the rising backlog of criminal cases against legislators.
The numbers presented before the court paint a grim picture. In 2018, the total number of pending cases against Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs) stood at 4,075. By January 1, 2025, this number had surged to 4,732, with 559 cases lingering unresolved for over a decade. Notably, 30% of these cases have been pending for over five years. States such as Odisha (323 out of 454 cases) and Maharashtra (169 out of 482 cases) have reported the highest figures for prolonged litigations.
Despite the alarming nature of these statistics, the Central government has opposed the petition for a lifetime ban, arguing that such legislative measures fall under the purview of Parliament. The government cites the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which grants Parliament the discretion to determine the duration and conditions of disqualification. However, successive governments have failed to meaningfully address the issue of political criminality, even as multiple committees and expert panels have flagged it as a threat to democratic governance.
The scale of this crisis is best illustrated by data from the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). As of June 2023, 44% of sitting MLAs across Indian states and Union Territories had declared criminal cases against them. By September 2023, 40% of sitting MPs from the Rajya Sabha and Lok Sabha had similar records. The situation is even more disconcerting when broken down further—33% of Rajya Sabha MPs and 46% of Lok Sabha MPs had declared criminal cases, with many of these involving serious charges such as murder, rape, and corruption. In several states, the percentage of MLAs with criminal cases ranges from 55% to 65%, a testament to the deep-seated nexus between crime and politics.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly described this phenomenon as a “cancer” afflicting Indian democracy, frequently reiterating that “lawbreakers cannot be lawmakers.” However, the judiciary has often stopped short of enforcing concrete remedies, citing legislative prerogative. Various past rulings highlight a pattern of judicial interventions followed by legislative inaction.
For instance, in February 2020, the Supreme Court mandated political parties to publicly justify their nomination of candidates with criminal backgrounds within 72 hours of selection. Earlier, in September 2018, the court required political parties and candidates to publish their criminal records at least three times before polling day.
Additionally, the court had urged Parliament to enact a law preventing candidates with serious criminal allegations from contesting elections. Yet, these directives have largely failed to dissuade political parties from fielding tainted candidates, as winnability remains their primary criterion.
Another noteworthy attempt to address this issue came in November 2017, when the Supreme Court ordered the establishment of special courts to expedite trials of legislators facing criminal charges. Consequently, eleven states set up twelve such courts, including two in Delhi and one each in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Maharashtra, and Madhya Pradesh. However, these courts have struggled with inadequate staffing and logistical constraints, rendering them ineffective in ensuring swift justice.
The 20th Law Commission, in its 244th report on electoral disqualification, had also recognized the inefficacy of post-conviction disqualification. It recommended an alternative approach—disqualification at the stage of charge framing, provided sufficient legal safeguards were in place. Additionally, it proposed stringent penalties for candidates filing false affidavits, including a minimum two-year prison sentence and automatic disqualification. The report also recommended conducting trials on a day-to-day basis to expedite verdicts and prevent political aspirants from manipulating legal loopholes to delay justice.
Despite these warnings and judicial interventions, political parties continue to exploit money and muscle power to secure electoral victories. The sheer financial stakes involved in elections encourage candidates to recover many times their initial campaign investment through illicit means once in office. This vicious cycle not only erodes governance but also fosters a culture of impunity, where criminal elements dictate the nation’s political agenda.
Compounding the issue is the reluctance of institutions to enforce corrective measures. The Election Commission of India (ECI), though empowered to regulate electoral practices, has largely failed to address the growing criminalization of politics with the urgency it demands. Meanwhile, the broader citizenry remains largely indifferent to the qualifications and backgrounds of candidates, enabling the perpetuation of this malaise.
The founding fathers of the Indian Constitution foresaw the importance of ethical leadership in shaping the nation’s future. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Dr. Rajendra Prasad had emphasized that the efficacy of the Constitution would ultimately depend on the character and integrity of those entrusted with its implementation. Regrettably, their vision has been betrayed by successive generations of politicians who, despite swearing oaths of allegiance to the Constitution, have often acted in their self-interest rather than in service to democratic ideals.
The recent Supreme Court deliberations raise a crucial question—will the judiciary finally take a decisive stance on political criminalization, or will it once again defer to a legislature that has consistently failed to act? Justice Manmohan’s remark during the hearing—“Criminalisation of politics is a major issue, and the ECI should have applied its mind to it…We need to be told how one who is not suitable to continue in government service can become a minister”—encapsulates the gravity of the issue.
With the Centre vehemently opposing a lifetime ban and Parliament showing little appetite for reform, the onus now lies on the judiciary to break this cycle of inaction. If democracy is to be safeguarded, the Supreme Court must go beyond mere observations and take concrete steps to cleanse India’s political system of its criminal elements. The question remains: will the judiciary finally bite the bullet?
Dipak Kurmi
(the writer can be reached at dipakkurmiglpltd@gmail.com)
Nagaland Post Launch on 30 Dec 1990 is the first and fore-most english daily newspaper of Nagaland.
© 2021 Nagaland Post. All Rights Reserved.