The debate over politicians with criminal convictions highlights the need for effective self-regulation in politics
Bhaskar Parichha
The Central Government has effectively communicated to the Supreme Court that the responsibility for deciding whether politicians with criminal convictions should be subjected to a lifetime ban from contesting elections rests with Parliament. This assertion underscores the government’s position that any changes to the current legal framework governing the eligibility of candidates with criminal backgrounds should originate from legislative action rather than judicial intervention.
The government has expressed its opposition to the imposition of a universal ban on such individuals, arguing that a blanket prohibition could infringe upon the democratic rights of citizens to choose their representatives. In this context, the government has actively contested legal challenges that question the constitutionality of certain provisions within the Representation of the People Act, which governs electoral processes in the country.
Under the existing legislation, a politician who has been convicted of a crime faces disqualification from participating in elections for six years following the completion of their sentence. This provision allows for a structured approach to reintegration into the political arena, permitting individuals to re-enter the political sphere and seek office once more after this interval.
However, this situation prompts a significant inquiry: Is a six-year disqualification adequate to deter future criminal conduct? Critics argue that this timeframe may not be sufficient to ensure that individuals with a history of criminal behavior have genuinely reformed or that they are fit to hold public office.
Six-year Disqualification
The debate surrounding the adequacy of the six-year disqualification raises important questions about the integrity of the political system and the standards to which elected officials should be held. Should the length of the ban be prolonged, or even made indefinite, to ensure that those with a history of criminal behavior are excluded from public office? Advocates for stricter measures contend that a longer disqualification period or a lifetime ban for serious offenses would serve as a stronger deterrent against criminal conduct among politicians and would help restore public trust in the electoral process.
This remains a divisive topic that many political parties often avoid, primarily due to the presence of leaders with criminal records within their ranks. The reluctance to engage in this discussion reflects a broader concern about the implications of such policies on party dynamics and electoral competitiveness. Political parties may fear that advocating for stricter disqualification measures could alienate certain voter bases or lead to internal conflicts, particularly if prominent party members are affected by such changes. As a result, the issue of criminal convictions among politicians continues to be a contentious and complex aspect of the political landscape, with significant implications for governance, accountability, and the rule of law.
The disconcerting truth is that criminal activity is significantly entrenched in the political arena. For example, out of the 70 newly elected Members of the Legislative Assembly (MLAs) in Delhi, an alarming 31 are currently facing criminal charges—16 from the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and the others from the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP). The choice of these candidates by their parties seems to be influenced more by their potential to win elections rather than any dedication to ethical principles or integrity.
Cornerstone of Justice
The legal principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is a cornerstone of justice systems in many democratic societies, ensuring that individuals are afforded the presumption of innocence until they are formally convicted of a crime. This principle is not only a safeguard for the accused but also a reflection of the broader values of fairness and due process that underpin the rule of law. However, this foundational tenet raises important questions regarding the decision-making practices of political parties, particularly in their candidate selection processes.
One of the most pressing inquiries is why political parties continue to nominate individuals with criminal histories, despite the availability of candidates with clean records. This trend can be attributed to several factors. First, candidates with past criminal convictions may possess unique experiences or perspectives that resonate with certain voter demographics, potentially appealing to constituents who value authenticity or who have faced similar challenges. Additionally, some parties may prioritize loyalty, political connections, or the ability to mobilize specific voter bases over the candidates’ legal histories, believing that these attributes outweigh the potential risks associated with a controversial past.
Moreover, the political landscape is often characterized by a complex interplay of public perception, media narratives, and evolving standards of accountability. In some cases, voters may be willing to overlook a candidate’s criminal history if they perceive that the individual has demonstrated genuine rehabilitation or if the political climate favors a more forgiving approach to past transgressions. This phenomenon can create a paradox where candidates with checkered pasts are not only accepted but may even thrive in certain political environments.
Media’s Portrayal
Compounding this issue is the challenge voters face in thoroughly assessing the backgrounds of candidates. The responsibility for investigating and prosecuting criminal matters primarily lies with the judicial system, which is not always equipped to provide timely or comprehensive information to the electorate. Delays in legal proceedings, the complexities of criminal records, and the varying degrees of public access to such information can hinder voters’ ability to make informed decisions. Furthermore, the media’s portrayal of candidates can significantly influence public perception, often focusing on sensational aspects of a candidate’s past rather than providing a nuanced understanding of their current qualifications and character.
In this context, the effectiveness of the judicial system becomes critical. If the system does not operate with the necessary speed and efficiency, it can leave voters in the dark about candidates’ backgrounds, potentially allowing individuals with unresolved legal issues to ascend to positions of power. This situation raises concerns about accountability and transparency in the political arena, as well as the implications for public trust in both the electoral process and the institutions responsible for upholding justice.
Given these complexities, it is essential to initiate a more extensive dialogue regarding the integrity of political candidates and the systems established to ensure that individuals aspiring to public office adhere to high ethical standards. The existing framework, which permits the potential re-entry of convicted politicians into the electoral process after a relatively brief period, may not sufficiently address the concerns of voters who seek transparency and accountability from their representatives.
Legal proceedings involving current or former Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies frequently extend over many years or even decades. This prolonged timeline allows them to participate in multiple elections. Accelerating these legal processes could aid in the removal of corrupt individuals and safeguard the integrity of the electoral system. Political parties can also contribute by implementing self-regulatory measures.
(The author is a senior journalist and columnist. Views expressed are personal.)
