Download UPSC CSE Prelims Paper 2025 General Studies Paper - I

7900-44-7900

ensureias@gmail.com

36% RAJYA SABHA CANDIDATES DECLARED CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST THEMSELVES: ADR

36% RAJYA SABHA CANDIDATES DECLARED CRIMINAL CASES AGAINST THEMSELVES: ADR

28-02-2024
  1. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the National Election Watch has found that 36% of the newly elected Rajya Sabha candidates have declared criminal cases against themselves.
  2. Additionally, 17% of these individuals face serious criminal charges with one candidate having cases related to attempted murder.
  1. ADR is a non-partisan, apolitical organization in India that has been working on electoral and political reforms for over 25 years. 
  1. Approximately 21% of the candidates are billionaires, with assets exceeding Rs 100 crore, reflecting the significant wealth amassed (collect) by certain individuals in the political arena.
  2. The majority (76%) of candidates belong to the 51-70 age group, with only 19% being women, reflecting gender disparities in political representation.

  3. Criminality Check: Political Party-wise Analysis

  1. The analysis provides a breakdown of candidates with criminal cases based on their political affiliations (relation), revealing varying proportions across parties.
  • BJP: 27% out of 30 candidates
  • Congress: 67% out of 9 candidates
  • TMC: 25% out of 4 candidates
  • SP: 67% out of 3 candidates
  • YSRCP: 33% out of 3 candidates
  • RJD: 50% out of 2 candidates
  • BJD: 50% out of 2 candidates
  • BRS: 100% out of 1 candidate

  1. Why Criminality does persist in Indian politics?

  1. Political Patronage (support)
  2. Protracted (long-lasting) Legal Processes and Ineffective judicial system & delayed justice
  3. Loopholes in the functioning of the election machinery
  4. Even though candidates must reveal criminal cases, voters often can't check this information properly.
  5. Parties use caste, religion, or region to get votes, sometimes ignoring whether the candidate is honest or not.

  1. Measures Taken to Address Criminalization in Politics

  1. Legislative Interventions

  • Representation of the People Act, 1951: Specifies grounds for disqualifying individuals convicted of certain crimes from contesting elections.
  • Conduct of Election Rules, 1961: Requires candidates to disclose pending criminal cases and convictions in affidavits, improving transparency.
  • Indian Penal Code, Chapter IX A: Defines and penalizes electoral offenses like bribery, discouraging criminal behaviour during elections.

  1. Establishment of Special Courts

  • Judicial Mechanisms: Special courts expedite cases against legislators, ensuring swift justice.
  • Tackling Impunity: Prosecution of politicians accused of crimes reduces impunity and upholds the rule of law.

  1. Vohra Committee Report (1993)

  • Comprehensive Analysis: Investigated the political-criminal nexus, proposing strategies to combat it.
  • Policy Recommendations: Informed decisions to disrupt criminal networks in politics.

  1. Election Commission Initiatives

  • Affidavit Reforms: Candidates must declare criminal records, assets, and qualifications, empowering voters.
  • Moral Code of Conduct: Enforcing ethical standards during elections reduces criminal influence and ensures fairness.

  1. Major Judicial Interventions

 

Background

Key Outcome

Significance

Union of India vs. Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)

Challenged lack of transparency in electoral processes regarding candidates' records.

SC mandated Election Commission to compel candidates to disclose criminal, financial, and educational details.

Empowered voters with vital information for informed choices, promote accountability in elections.

Ramesh Dalal vs. Union of India (2005)

Imposed disqualification criteria for convicted candidates.

SC ruled sitting MPs/MLAs would be disqualified if convicted and sentenced to imprisonment for two years or more.

Established stringent disqualification criteria to deter (stop) candidates with criminal backgrounds, enhancing integrity of elected representatives.

Lily Thomas vs. Union of India (2013)

Addressed interpretation of Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1951.

Supreme Court declared Section 8(4) unconstitutional, disqualifying legislators convicted and sentenced to two years or more.

Closed loopholes allowing convicted legislators to retain seats, reinforcing accountability and integrity in the political system.

People's Union for Civil Liberties vs. Union of India (2013)

Addressed voters' rights to reject candidates with criminal backgrounds through NOTA.

Supreme Court ruled voters could reject all candidates using NOTA in electronic voting machines (EVMs).

Introduced NOTA as a voting option, empowering voters to express dissatisfaction with criminalized politics, promoting cleaner elections.

Must Check: Best IAS Coaching In Delhi

What is Mosura Fentoni?

India-Germany Strategic Partnership: Silver Jubilee

How India’s Coastline Lengthened Without Gaining New Land