The presence of politicians who have committed serious offences seriously affects governance measures as they often place personal interests above the public good, weakening institutions and policy-making
Tejeswar Patnaik
In the world’s largest democracy, where governance should be rooted in integrity and public service, a disturbing reality looms large—criminals are steadily occupying the corridors of power. Recent revelations by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) expose a grim scenario: a growing number of elected representatives in India bear criminal records, some accused of the most heinous crimes. This alarming trend not only mocks the sanctity of our democratic process but also threatens to erode public trust in the very institutions meant to uphold justice and order. How long can a democracy sustain itself when lawbreakers become lawmakers?
The ADR report reveals that 1,861 MLAs across India—nearly 45%—have declared criminal cases against them. Of these, 1,205 face serious charges, including murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, and crimes against women. States like Andhra Pradesh (56%), Telangana (50%), and Bihar (49%) lead in the number of MLAs with serious criminal backgrounds, with regional parties accounting for a larger share of such candidates than national parties.
At the parliamentary level, the scenario is equally troubling. Recent findings show that 36% of newly elected Rajya Sabha members have criminal cases pending, with 17% accused of grave offences. Moreover, around 21% of all candidates possess assets exceeding Rs 100 crore—revealing a nexus between wealth and political entry. A 2023 petition highlighted a 44% increase in MPs with criminal records since 2009. In the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, 16% of 1,618 candidates declared criminal cases, and 10% faced serious charges—cutting across party lines. These figures present a disturbing paradox.
It is a travesty that many law-breakers manage to get party tickets and win elections with voters’ mandate, and they become our lawmakers,signaling a wrong message to the society at large. Despite criminal charges, many of these candidates win elections. Why? Because they wield money, muscle, and influence—tools that often overshadow merit and public service. For many, politics becomes a refuge, a shield against legal consequences, and a launchpad for power consolidation.
The judiciary has made attempts to tackle this malaise. In the case of Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2019), the Supreme Court directed political parties to disclose candidates’ criminal records and mandated the Election Commission to ensure wide dissemination. Earlier, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), the Court ruled that convicted lawmakers must be disqualified immediately.
Constitutional provisions—Articles 84, 102, 173, and 191—set eligibility and disqualification criteria, supported by laws like the Indian Penal Code and the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951. However, these measures fall short in a system where influence often trumps accountability.
Significant recommendations have come from the Vohra Committee (1993), which highlighted the nexus between criminals, politicians, and bureaucrats. The Law Commission also suggested barring candidates with serious charges and fast-tracking trials through special courts. In a 2025 hearing, the Supreme Court, responding to a PIL, raised concerns about allowing convicted individuals to return to Parliament after serving their sentences and sought responses from the Centre and the Election Commission regarding a possible lifetime ban.
The Election Commission of India, a constitutional body, has a crucial role in curbing black money and enforcing electoral integrity. Electoral reforms must also include internal party democracy and greater transparency in candidate selection. Political parties, unfortunately, continue to field Bahubalis—individuals with criminal records—who promise electoral success due to their financial clout and muscle power, sidelining candidates of merit and integrity.
The presence of politicians who have committed serious offences seriously affects governance measures as they often place personal interests above the public good, weakening institutions and policy-making. The path forward requires urgent corrective action: lifetime bans for serious offenders, transparency in political funding, fast-tracked judicial processes, and cross-party consensus to reject criminal candidates.
Public apathy—especially among the middle class—towards electoral politics compounds the issue. High election expenses prevent many competent and honest people from entering the political arena, allowing wealthy elites and political dynasts to dominate. Concerns about the integrity of the political system are heightened by the current methods of political funding, including donations from corporations, interest groups, and mafias.
The current system of political funding, including opaque corporate donations, demands urgent reform. State funding of elections, though controversial, may be worth re-evaluating.
Enhancing women’s participation in politics is another avenue toward cleaner governance. Women leaders, by and large, are less associated with criminal behaviour and may bring more inclusive and accountable leadership styles.
The criminalization of politics is not just a legal anomaly—it is a moral crisis that undermines the very essence of democracy. When lawbreakers become lawmakers, the rule of law is diminished, and public faith in institutions erodes.
It is time for political parties to rise above narrow interests and show the will to deny tickets to tainted candidates. The Judiciary and Election Commission must enforce accountability with firmness and independence. But above all, the responsibility lies with the citizens. Our vote must stand for integrity and not be swayed by inducements.
If democracy is to endure and thrive, voters must reject the entry of criminals into politics and all other freebies offered by candidates during elections. Only by restoring honesty to public life can India be recognized as a just and vibrant democracy, and not be labelled as a sham.
(The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed are personal.)
