Criminalization of politics: Why ADR has approached the ECI

Subject :Polity

Section: Election

Concept :

Recently, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), wrote to the Election Commission seeking action against parties that fail to publish details of criminal antecedents of candidates as per orders of the Supreme Court and the poll panel.
ADR is an electoral watchdog established in 1999 by a group of professors from the Indian Institute of Management (IIM) Ahmedabad.

Criminalization of politics

The criminalization of politics refers to the phenomenon where individuals with criminal backgrounds, including those charged or convicted of criminal offenses, actively participate in politics.
Several politicians with criminal records have managed to secure positions in legislative bodies, ranging from local municipalities to the national Parliament.
This trend cuts across party lines and affects politicians from various political parties.

2018 Judgement

In September 2018, the Supreme Court decided that political parties must share information about the criminal cases pending against their candidates.
This includes publishingsuch information on the websites of respective political parties in a format specified by the Election Commission of India.
The candidates did declare the cases pending against them in their election affidavits to the ECI before the ruling.
However, the Supreme Court order made it mandatory for the information to be widely publicised.
It directed parties to publish the details of criminal cases pending against a candidate in bold letters and told the candidate with pending cases to inform the party about these cases.
The court also ordered that the candidate and the party have to publish the information at least thrice after filing the nomination.

2020 Judgement

In February 2020, the apex court reiterated that the parties would have to publish the details of candidates with pending criminal cases.
SC was hearing a contempt petition regarding its 2018 order not being implemented.
It also added that they would have to include the reasons for selecting such a candidate.
As per the court, the reasons as to selection shall be with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere winnability at the polls.
According to this ruling, political parties must publish the information about criminal cases against their candidates in a local vernacular newspaper, a national newspaper, and on their official social media platforms.
They must do this within 48 hours of candidate selection or at least two weeks before the first nomination date, whichever comes earlier.
The parties would then have to submit a compliance report with the ECI within 72 hours.

How are political parties flouting the Supreme Court’s orders?

According to ADR, political parties are flouting the Supreme Court’s orders and the ECI’s subsequent directions.
Many political parties did not have functional websites to publish the information.
Those that did, had not maintained the information and/or had inaccessible website links.
The ADR letter point out that parties were citing chances of winning, the popularity of the person as among the reasons.
The SC had said that a party cannot use winnability as a reason for selecting a candidate with criminal antecedents.
The parties were also copy-pasting the similar justifications for multiple candidates.