Our legislatures are seeing the entry of a rising number of lawmakers of criminal background in the state Assemblies as well as Parliament. This further strengthens the crime-politics nexus, which has been a subject of national conversation in the last quarter century. To take the example of the Lok Sabha, in 2004 there were 124 MPs with criminal antecedents, in 2009 the figure rose to 162, and in 2014 the numbers jumped to 182, as per ADR data. Many of their legislators are guilty of serious crimes such as murder, rape and abduction, besides serious wrongdoing in the field of finance. The situation is hardly better in the state legislatures.
This state of affairs casts a shadow on policy-making. It distorts governance. And yet, last Tuesday, the Supreme Court, playing a glaringly non-interventionist role in sharp contrast with the decisiveness it has demonstrated in respect of matters related to leading social questions, treated the issue of criminal legislators with kid gloves.
The court reiterated that it is Parliament that must legislate on how best to deal with the worrying situation. But since tainted legislators belong to all the principal parties in the system, the biggest number coming from the BJP in the present Lok Sabha, we may take it for granted that Parliament will not move an inch. Its record in this respect is one of callous indifference.
The standard response of the political system has been that convicted legislators will not be permitted to run in elections. This is in keeping with the Representation of the People Act. But a conviction is nearly impossible to secure, given the delays that characterise our judicial system, and criminals among politicians continue to make hay.
Recommendations of the Election Commission in this regard, which could be helpful, lie wholly disregarded. The EC has been of the view that no candidate against whom a charge has been framed in serious criminal cases should be permitted to contest an election. Politicians get away by saying that their rivals tend to foist false cases on them. This is true enough to some extent. To meet this difficulty, the EC has proposed that a candidate may not contest if a chargesheet in a serious criminal matter has been framed against him at least six months prior to an election. But this is so much water off a duck’s back.
It would be best if parties were responsible enough not to give party tickets to known criminals. But since criminals bring money and muscle power to the table, and their “winnability” is deemed high, they are sought after by parties instead of being shunned. In the circumstances, the legislature and the executive — among the three pillars of State — have a vested interest in the status quo continuing. That leaves only the judiciary. It is to be hoped that in the not distant future the Supreme Court will rise to the occasion even if failed to do so earlier this week.
H10
