Nearly half of the members of the Lok Sabha are facing criminal charges, while around one-third of Rajya Sabha members have also declared criminal cases against themselves.
The affidavit placed before the Supreme Court by amicus curiae Vijay Hansaria is shocking, to say the least. It reveals the disturbing extent to which criminality has penetrated India’s democratic institutions. Nearly half of the members of the Lok Sabha are facing criminal charges, while around one-third of Rajya Sabha members have also declared criminal cases against themselves. Equally alarming is the fact that 14 of India’s Chief Ministers have disclosed pending criminal cases against them. Overall, nearly 4,000 cases are pending against sitting and former Members of Parliament and Members of Legislative Assemblies. These figures show that unless urgent and effective measures are taken, the criminalisation of politics may become so deeply entrenched in the country that it will become increasingly difficult to reverse. The problem has now assumed gigantic proportions and cannot be addressed by any single individual or institution. Eliminating this corrosive feature of Indian democracy requires a coordinated and sustained effort involving the judiciary, the legislature, executive and the political parties.
For years, one word has dominated the selection of electoral candidates by political parties: “winnability.” More often than not, electoral calculations have taken precedence over integrity, public service and moral credibility. Quite ironically, the data in the affidavit indicates that candidates facing criminal cases have a significantly higher probability of winning elections than those without such allegations. The reasons are not difficult to understand. Such candidates may have access to enormous financial resources, the ability to intimidate rivals and, in some cases, the capacity to create an atmosphere of fear among voters.
In a political system that is driven by numbers and electoral arithmetic, parties frequently appear willing to sacrifice clean public life at the altar of electoral success. But, consequences of this trend are serious. When individuals facing serious criminal allegations enter legislatures and occupy positions of power, the quality of governance inevitably suffers. The interests of the marginalised and weaker sections of society can become secondary to the preservation of political power and personal influence. Democracy is weakened when law-makers themselves are seen as being in conflict with the law. The judiciary has repeatedly expressed concern over this disturbing phenomenon. In 2023, the Supreme Court directed all High Courts to establish special monitoring benches to oversee cases involving legislators. It also emphasised that adjournments in such cases should be granted only for rare and compelling reasons. Yet, the ground reality suggests that these directions alone have not been sufficient to bring about a significant change. So, the electorate must be provided with a more meaningful mechanism to reject unsuitable candidates. One possible reform worth serious consideration is to give greater significance to the NOTA (None of the above) option. At present, NOTA has largely remained symbolic, as votes cast under it do not affect the final electoral outcome. Granting NOTA the status and consequences of a genuine electoral choice could transform it into a more powerful democratic instrument. If voters were able to reject all candidates in a constituency and such rejection carried tangible consequences, political parties might be forced to reconsider the kind of candidates they nominate.