Review of the Supreme Court's Position on Criminalisation of Politics
- ByAdmin --
- 30 Jun 2025 --
- 0 Comments
The issue of criminalisation of politics—where individuals with serious criminal charges contest and hold public office—remains one of the gravest threats to India’s democratic integrity. Over the last two decades, the Supreme Court (SC) has delivered several landmark rulings aiming to address this issue. Yet, despite strong judicial pronouncements, the presence of tainted candidates in legislative bodies has only grown.
This review explores the evolution of the SC's stance, key judgments, and the limits of judicial intervention in tackling this entrenched problem.
Why It Matters
- A significant percentage of MPs and MLAs in India face criminal charges, including for serious offences like murder, sexual assault, and corruption.
- The presence of such individuals erodes public trust, normalizes lawlessness, and undermines the rule of law.
- The issue intersects with Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, affecting equality, fair representation, and democratic functioning.
Key Supreme Court Judgments and Observations
1. Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)
- The SC ruled that convicted MPs and MLAs will be disqualified immediately, striking down Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act which earlier allowed a 3-month buffer to file an appeal.
- This judgment was hailed as a major step toward decriminalising Indian politics.
2. Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2014 & 2018)
- The Court held that mere filing of a charge sheet would not lead to disqualification, but emphasized the need for Parliament to legislate on barring candidates with serious criminal charges.
- In its 2018 judgment, the SC made it mandatory for:
- Political parties to publicly disclose criminal antecedents of their candidates.
- Parties to explain why such candidates were preferred despite their criminal background.
- Information to be published on party websites, newspapers, and social media platforms.
- Political parties to publicly disclose criminal antecedents of their candidates.
3. Contempt Proceedings Against Political Parties (2020–2023)
- After political parties ignored the Court’s directions, the SC took contempt action and reiterated that parties must strictly adhere to disclosure norms.
- In 2023, the Court further clarified that non-compliance could invite contempt and directed the Election Commission to ensure enforcement.
Judicial Rationale
The Court has consistently held that:
- Right to know the criminal background of candidates is part of the freedom of expression under Article 19(1)(a).
- The integrity of elections is vital to the basic structure of the Constitution.
- Judicial disqualification based on charges alone is not viable due to the presumption of innocence, but transparency and voter awareness are key tools.
Challenges & Limitations
Despite strong judicial words:
- Implementation remains weak: Political parties routinely flout disclosure norms or comply in form, not substance.
- No automatic bar on contesting elections for candidates with serious charges—only conviction leads to disqualification.
- Delay in trials allows many to contest for years despite serious allegations.
- Judicial activism is limited by the separation of powers: The SC has repeatedly asked Parliament to enact stronger laws but cannot legislate itself.
Election Commission's Role
- While empowered to enforce conduct, the Election Commission of India (ECI) has limited scope to disqualify candidates unless laws change.
- The SC has asked the ECI to play a more proactive role in monitoring disclosures and recommending reforms.
Way Forward
- Fast-track courts for criminal cases against politicians.
- Pre-screening laws barring those with serious charges (framed by a court, not just an FIR).
- Voter education campaigns to raise awareness.
- Stronger penalties for non-disclosure or false affidavits.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s stand on criminalisation of politics has been principled, consistent, and reform-driven. Yet, the lack of political will and legislative inertia has dulled the impact of these judicial interventions. While courts can enforce transparency and uphold constitutional morality, it is Parliament’s duty to legislate meaningful disqualification norms.
India’s democracy can only thrive when those who make the law are not themselves lawbreakers. Until that ideal is realised, the judiciary will continue to be a reluctant watchdog in a fight that demands much more from the political class.
RELATED Blog
0 comments