Sanjeeb Panigrahi
A Constitution bench of the apex court in the Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India and others case observed: “Society has a right to be governed by better people.” The court, while admitting the PIL, refrained from barring politicians from contesting election and left the issue to the wisdom of the Parliament. According to the court, it could not add more disqualifications to the Representation of the People Act and avoided barring charge-sheeted legislators from contesting polls. The bench held that there was a need to create fast-track courts to conduct criminal trials. The legal principles, “presumption of innocence unless proven guilty” and “doctrine of separation of power”, have received primacy in the judgement.
The apex court, however, observed that citizens have the right to know the criminal antecedents of a candidate so that they can make an informed choice in the election. The bench ordered candidates to mention criminal cases pending against them in bold letters while filing their affidavits with the Election Commission. It has also ordered the candidates to inform the political party about their criminal antecedents which should be uploaded on the party’s website. Both the candidate and the party would also publish (at least thrice before nomination) the criminal cases in widely circulated newspapers.
Fact remains, despite the Election Commission’s plethora of recommendations and proposals to the Union government on the issue of criminalisation of politics since 1998, the government has been on silent mode for years. The commission had already proposed that the law should be amended to provide that any person accused of an offence punishable by imprisonment for five years or more should be disqualified from contesting election even when trial is pending, provided charges have been framed against him by the competent court. This step would go a long way in cleansing political establishments and the sanctity of the house could be maintained. But the sheer lack of political will often acts as a stumbling block in materialising the EC’s reforms. The existing law disqualifies politicians sentenced to two years or more in prison from contesting elections for six years from date of release. The EC has proposed lifetime ban on convicted politicians contesting elections, which is also facing similar political backlash.
Nearly 1,600 MPs and MLAs (at least one-third of lawmakers) are facing serious criminal charges such as murder, attempt to murder and creating communal disharmony, which is evident from their self-declared affidavits. According to media reports, a large percentage of candidates with serious criminal charges actually win elections. While only 12 per cent of candidates with a “clean” record win on average, 23 per cent of candidates with some criminal record win; more alarmingly, 23 per cent of all those with serious criminal charges win.
Enough water has flown down the river in the shape of rhetoric and pledges to follow probity and the Rule of Law in all walks of life. But electoral reform seems to be the least involved aspect of our parliamentary debate and discussions.
Constitutional democracy ensures the citizenry to secure a representative form of government, elected freely and fairly, and comprising a polity whose members are men and women of high integrity and morality. Sadly, integrity and morality in politics are vanishing quickly. The weakness in the system should not be the green pasture for the politico-bureaucrat-businessmen nexus. Unfortunately, several previous efforts have ended in futility and accountability, probity and transparency have been given burials. The steps taken by the judiciary as part of strategies to curb corruption in public office and to redeem its image have been consistent and are commendable. Hence, it is high time the apex court’s dicta were translated into action with no scepticism.
Also Read
The author is a Supreme Court advocate.
