15-February-2025-Editorial

LIFETIME BAN ON CONVICTED POLITICIANS: A DEBATE ON ELECTORAL REFORMS

The Supreme Court is currently hearing petitions that demand a lifetime ban on convicted individuals from contesting elections. These petitions seek amendments to the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act, 1951), which lays down the legal framework for disqualification of candidates with criminal records. The aim is to reduce criminalization in politics and uphold electoral integrity. However, this issue remains highly debated, with strong arguments both in favor and against a lifetime disqualification.

Legal Provisions and Supreme Court Judgments Related to Convicted Politicians

1. Legal Provisions Under the RP Act, 1951

The RP Act, 1951 contains various provisions that regulate the eligibility of candidates with criminal backgrounds.

• Section 8(3): Disqualification Based on Sentence Duration

• If a candidate is convicted and sentenced to two or more years in prison, they are disqualified from contesting elections during their imprisonment and for six years after release.

• Section 8(1): Disqualification for Specific Serious Offenses

• Some offenses lead to immediate disqualification, regardless of the sentence duration.
• These offenses include rape, corruption, terrorism, and crimes against untouchability.
• The disqualification period extends to six years after release.

• Section 11: Election Commission’s Power to Reduce Disqualification

• The Election Commission of India (ECI) has the authority to remove or shorten the disqualification period for convicted candidates.
• Example: In 2019, Prem Singh Tamang (CM of Sikkim) had his disqualification period reduced from six years to 13 months, allowing him to contest elections despite a corruption conviction.

2. Important Supreme Court Judgments

• Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) Case, 2002

• The SC mandated that all contesting candidates must disclose their criminal records in their election affidavits.

• CEC vs. Jan Chaukidar Case, 2013

• The Patna High Court ruled that undertrial prisoners lose their voting rights and cannot contest elections. The Supreme Court upheld this decision.
• However, Parliament overturned this ruling through an amendment, allowing undertrials to contest elections.

• Lily Thomas Case, 2013

• The SC struck down Section 8(4) of the RP Act, 1951, which previously allowed convicted MPs/MLAs to continue in office if they filed an appeal.
• After this ruling, any MP or MLA convicted of a crime is immediately disqualified.

• Public Interest Foundation Case, 2018

• The SC directed political parties to publish the criminal records of their candidates on their official websites, social media, and newspapers before elections.

Extent of Criminalization in Indian Politics

• According to a 2024 ADR (Association for Democratic Reforms) report, 46% of elected MPs (251 out of 543) have criminal cases against them.
• 31% of MPs (171 candidates) face serious charges, including murder, rape, attempt to murder, and kidnapping.
• The chances of winning for candidates with criminal cases is 15.4%, compared to 4.4% for candidates with a clean record.

Arguments in Favor of a Lifetime Ban on Convicted Politicians

• Prevent Criminalization of Politics
  • The Vohra Committee Report (1993) highlighted the nexus between criminals and politicians and recommended strict disqualification rules for candidates with serious criminal backgrounds.
• Equal Standards for Government Officials and Politicians
  • Government employees are dismissed upon conviction. Politicians, who hold public trust, should be held to the same ethical standards.
• Restoring Public Faith in Democracy
  • Allowing convicted criminals to contest elections erodes public trust in democratic institutions.
• Strengthening Electoral Integrity
  • A lifetime ban would deter criminals from entering politics, leading to a cleaner electoral system.

Arguments Against a Lifetime Ban on Convicted Politicians

• Risk of False Cases Against Political Opponents
  • Political rivals may misuse the judicial process by filing false cases against opponents to disqualify them.
• Different Rules for Elected Representatives and Bureaucrats
  • Unlike bureaucrats, MPs and MLAs are elected by the people and do not have fixed service conditions.
  • A six-year disqualification after conviction is considered a sufficient penalty.
• Voter’s Right to Choose
  • Disqualifying convicted politicians takes away the people’s right to choose their representatives.
• Scope for Reform
  • A lifetime ban ignores the possibility of rehabilitation. Many individuals reform over time and should get a second chance.
  • Fast-tracking criminal cases against politicians could be a better solution.

Way Forward:

1. Strengthening Disqualification Rules

• Extend disqualification beyond six years for serious offenses like corruption, terrorism, and sexual crimes.

2. Enhancing the Role of the Election Commission (ECI)

• Empower the ECI to verify criminal records and financial disclosures of candidates.
• The EC has suggested that candidates charged with offenses punishable by more than five years should not be allowed to contest elections.

3. Judicial Reforms: Fast-Track Courts for Politicians

• Set up special courts to ensure time-bound trials for MPs and MLAs.
• Prevent delays that allow politicians to contest elections despite facing serious charges.

4. Enforcing a Political Code of Conduct

• Introduce a strict Code of Conduct for political leaders, ensuring ethical behavior and accountability.
• Establish a Political Ethics Committee under the ECI to monitor violations and take action against unethical practices.

Conclusion

The demand for a lifetime ban on convicted politicians is a step towards reducing criminal influence in politics. While it ensures electoral integrity, concerns about false cases and rehabilitation must also be addressed. A balanced approach involving stronger disqualification rules, fast-tracked trials, and ethical guidelines is essential to uphold democratic values. Reforming election laws is crucial to ensuring that only clean, capable, and ethical leaders represent the people of India.