meaning, reasons, causes and cases on Criminalization of Politics in India

1. CRIMINALIZATION OF
POLITICS IN INDIA
SUBMITTED BY:
ADYA
CHOUBEY

2. MEANING OF CRIMINALIZATION OF
POLITICS
• CRIMINALIZATION OF POLITICS IS THE INCREASE IN THE POWER OF
CRIMINAL IN AFFECTING THE ELECTION PROCESS AND WINNING AS
CANDIDATE IN THE ELECTIONS.
• IT TAKES PLACE PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE NEXUS BETWEEN THE
CRIMINALS AND SOME OF THE POLITICIANS.

3. HISTORY OF CRIMINALIZATION OF
POLITICS IN INDIA
• The First Instances of “Booth-capturing” Was Reported In 1957,
And Involved Hired Goons Who Would Mobilize or Suppress
Turnout, or Vote on Behalf of Disenfranchised Voters. In Return
For Their Work, Politicians Would Protect These Criminals From
Prosecution.
• At The Same Time, The Costs of Contesting Elections Kept
Increasing Due to a Rising Population, Increasing Political
Competition, the Number Of Political Parties Increased From 55 In
The 1952 General Election To 464 In 2014 And The Trend Of
Giving Freebies For Votes. This Led Parties To A Competitive
Search For Underground Financing.

4. REASONS/CAUSES
• Narrow self interest
• Use of Muscle and Money Power
• Lack of political will

5. EFFECT OF CRIMINALIZATION OF POLITICS
• Against the Principle of Free and Fair Election
• Affecting Good Governance
• Affecting Integrity of Public Servants
• Causes Social Disharmony

6. WHAT DOES THE RPA SAY ON THIS
• Section 8 of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, 1951 disqualifies a
person convicted with a sentence of two years or more from contesting
elections. But those under trial continued to be eligible to contest elections.
The Lily Thomas case (2013), however, ended this unfair advantage.

7. JUDGEMENTS BY THE SUPREME COURT IN
THIS REGARD
Lily Thomas Vs Union of India 2013
• The Supreme Court struck down a provision in the electoral law that
protects the convicted law-maker from disqualification on the ground of
pendency of appeal in the higher courts. The highest court also made it
clear that MPs, MLAs and MLCs will stand disqualified on the date of
conviction.
• In the same case, The apex court of India declared that persons in jail or
police custody cannot contest elections to legislative bodies. Only an
“elector” can contest polls and he ceases the right to cast vote due to
confinement in prison or by being in police custody.

8. • Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India
In the present case the Supreme Court observed that the political parties need
to offer an explanation as to why candidates with pending criminal cases are
selected as candidates in the first place.

9. SUGGESTIONS/MEASURE TO CURB
CRIMINALIZATION OF POLITICS
• Election Commission should be given more power to deal with corruption
cases.
• Representation of Peoples Act (RPA) needs to be amended and there should
be stricter actions against serious offenders.
• Stricter implementation of anti-corruption laws.
• Fast-track courts are necessary because politicians are able to delay the
judicial process and serve for decades before prosecution.

10. CONCLUSION