Title -A penchant for criminality

ABSTRACT

The criminalization of politics continues to be a very big concern, with an increase in the number
of MPs with criminal records in 2009 from 150 to 186 in 2014. Even the number of MPs with
serious criminal cases has gone up. The biggest reason for this seems to be the undemocratic and
autocratic selection and nomination of candidates by political parties. In order to ensure the win
ability of candidates, parties ignored honesty to give preference to muscle power and money
power. It is very important that democracy forms the basic structure of the society. Effort must
be made to make society democratic. Democracy should be the value system of Indian citizens.
The responsibility of survival of democracy can’t be shifted to the state institutions alone. The
citizens have an equal part to play in the healthy functioning of the democracy. This paper is
concerned with the issues why the crimilization of politics on rapid growth and how to
decrimilize the politics with the help of judicial reforms and with the reference of international
law concern with it and how the implementation of these laws can be done without any
loopholes. This research paper is dealing with the present scenario and the law and how it can be
more effective.

Introduction

India is a democratic country and the Indian constitution gives the equal opportunity to become
the representative of the people and elect the candidate of their choice to the all citizens. India is
a developing country and it’s facing many problems from the independence to till date. In India
politics is a game of money and muscle power which make difficult for the common people to
participate in the elections. The elections in India is like a war to win this elections the candidate
use the every fair and unfair methods, for this they need muscle power and money and for
accomplishment of their targets they hire “Gunda’s” and take money from them to win
elections. In favor when they come into a power they do the works of those persons, basically
using the policy of give and take. But now time is change and that bad moral person rather than
providing the money and muscle power to someone they itself elect the elections and become the
rule breakers to rule maker. In the Supreme Court verdict it’s made is mandatory to that persons
who are participating in the elections they have to disclose their Information of Property,
Education and the criminal charges against them. But In 2014 Parliament election again 17%
people elected with a criminal records. This shows that people don’t mind to elect the persons
with the criminal charges. In 2018 Supreme Court in latest judgment shows their concern of
criminalization of politics and issued various other guidelines for the same and give strength to
legislature to come with another effective law to decrimilisation the politics.
Definition and Nature:

At present we very often come across the words criminalisation of politics. The meaning of the
term is quite known to educated people and newspaper readers. For academic purposes a
definition is to be given here. When politics or political power is used by self-interest-seeking
persons for pecuniary gains or various other advantages such as to get special position in
administration or to rise to the higher stage of administration which is normally not feasible.

Criminalization of Politics means that the criminals entering the politics and contesting elections
and even getting elected to the Parliament and state legislature.

It takes place primarily because of the nexus between the criminals and some of the politicians.

The criminals need the patronage of politicians occupying public offices to continue with their
criminal activities and the politicians need the money and muscle power that the criminals can
offer to the politicians to win elections. In course of time, the nexus led the criminals themselves
to contest elections.

Rousseau (1712-1778) was a great admirer of democracy, but he was quite apprehensive of its
real existence. He thought that people are corrupt and this will lead to the fall of democracy. That
is why we find him saying: were there a people of gods, their government would be democratic.
So perfect a form of government is not for men.

Even in Rousseau’s time there were great inequalities of property and wealth. Some people
earned property and built up wealth through unfair means and this created un-equalities in wealth
and power. So wealth was used to get patronage in political arena and political power was also
used to get wealthy.

Causes of Criminalisation of Politics:

The most important cause of criminalisation of politics is the unholy nexus between politicians
and bureaucracy. Ramchandra Guha (India after Gandhi) says, “In Jawaharlal Nehru’s time the
civil service was shielded from politics, transfers, promotions and the like were decided within
the executive branch itself. From the 1970s, however, individual bureaucrats came increasingly
to ally with individual politicians or political parties. When the party they allied with was in
power, they get the best postings. In return, they energetically implemented the partisan agenda
of the politicians”.

This undesirable and dangerous relationship between bureaucracy and political leaders opened
the door of criminalisation of politics. The great founders of Indian nation-state thought of an
independent bureaucracy. But within two decades of freedom their hope and dream shattered.
Both came to an understanding to help each other and this led to the criminalisation of politics.
The interference of politicians in the administration may be regarded as another reason of
criminalisation of politics. Guha’s says, “In a letter to the prime minister, the retired civil servant
M. N. Buch has highlighted the consequences of this politicisation of the administration. The
way the government is now run means that the disciplinary hierarchy of the civil services has
completely broken down. A subordinate who does not measure up and pulled up by his superior
knows that he can approach a politician, escape the consequences for his own misdeeds and
cause the harm to his superior”

In the 1970s this started in embryonic form and today this has assumed an epidemic. Most of the
politicians of modern India interfere with administration in one form or another. The civil
servants are becoming more and more corrupt, so also the politicians. The net result is politics is,
ultimately, criminalised.

Caste and religion both are equally responsible for the criminalisation of politics. In bureaucracy
there are certain fixed procedures and rules in the promotion. But caste and religion both
interfere in this process. Less qualified and inefficient civil servants get promotion. The quota
system is fully responsible. It has been found that a minister of a particular caste or religion will
distribute favour to the members of his own caste and religion. In many states of India this is
found.

The system of party government is also responsible for the criminalisation of politics. On the eve
of general election the leaders of the party give promises to the electorate. The purpose is to win
the election. If the party luckily comes to power, the members of the ruling party try to
implement the promises. The dark side of this situation is the party in power does not consider
the feasibility and rationality of the action or promises unreasonable and impractical ways and
techniques are adopted. This is a cause of criminalisation of politics.

In post-independent India strong public opinion against corrupt practices has not developed.
Each person knows that that system or practice is corrupt. But there is nobody to protest against
it. Rather, he thinks that this is the system and he accepts it. This tendency has finally opened the
door of the criminalisation of politics. But if anybody objects to the corrupt practice he is either
penalised or deprived of his due.

Un-development, illiteracy, poverty and prismatic nature of Indian social system are collectively
responsible for the criminalisation of politics. The shrewd and self-interest-seeking politicians —
in collaboration with corrupt civil servants — adopt various types of unfair means to satisfy their
greediness and ill-motives. The Indian society is in transition. From various sources the
government of India is getting funds for development.

The government also spends huge amount of money through Five Year Plans. A large amount of
money is laundered by politician and bureaucrats. There is a close alliance between the two and
this has led to the worst type of criminalisation of politics.
We again remember Plato. He thought that for an ideal state the citizens must be deal and tor that
purpose he thought establishing values, morality and idealism in the society. We have forgotten
Plato and also the importance of values morality, ethics etc. This has downgraded the importance
of moral values, ethics honesty etc.

People generally think of immediate pecuniary gains and give top priority to all these. We,
therefore, think that decline of general values has led to the criminalisation of politics. The ghost
of Machiavelli has returned. But people have forgot that Machiavelli’s suggestion was made in
the background of the pitiable condition of Italy.

In the election of 2005 investigation about the criminal activities of candidates contesting-
the election was made and the survey reveals the following figures:

Many political parties of India fielded candidates who had criminal cases against them. Some of
these candidates also won in elections. Two points may be made here. One is—the parties
fielded the candidates who had criminal background. It means that the parties do not give due
importance to this black spot.

The simple implication is that the criminal activities of candidates are not important. The other is
that the voters have helped these candidates to win. While exercising franchise it is the duty of
the voters to take information about the candidates. We, therefore, conclude that both voters and
parties are equally responsible for the criminalisation of politics.

Corruption and crime both have engulfed our MPs. They raise questions in parliament in
exchange of money. A few years ago our parliament was in storm on this issue.

Here a part of a newspaper reporting:

“A TV sting operation caught 11 MPs. 6 MPs from BJP, 3 MPs from BSP, one RJD MP and one
Congress MR All of them took bribe as ranging from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 1,10,000 for raising
question in parliament. The law-makers were taking paltry amount to subvert the country’s
highest democratic institution. The MPs asked questions in Parliament for cash” — Times of
India, Kolkata edition, 13.12.2005.
It is a disgrace on the part of the members of the highest democratic institution of our country.
This is really a disgrace on the part of the members of parliament. These MPs are law-makers
and these laws are implemented to make society crime-free. But the law-makers are themselves
parts of criminal activities.

Indian bureaucracy is also highly corrupted. From, the reports published in newspapers we come
to know that the top bureaucrats build up fortune of crores of rupees within the first few years of
their service. From various sources they get money. The businessmen give bribe to get out-of-
the-way benefit. Ordinary people also give bribe to the officers to get quick service. Behind all
sorts of corruption there is politics. We can say politics has criminalised everything and the
administration tops the list. When both politics and administration are corrupt nothing can
remain outside it.

Recent Development in Criminalisation of Politics:

Persons can’t fight from Jail:

The apex court of India in a judgment on July 11, 2013 declared that persons in jail or police
custody cannot contest elections to legislative bodies. The order was passed by the Supreme
Court along with the landmark verdict that MPs, MLAs and MLCs would be disqualified the day
they were convicted. This double whammy against the criminals in Indian legislatures is
expected to go a long way in cleaning up politics.

The Supreme Court bench of Justices A. K. Patnayak and S. j. Mukhopadhyaya ruled only an
elector can contest the polls and he/she forfeits the right to vote during imprisonment or in police
custody. The court based its order on provisions of the Representation of People’s Act. Sections
4 and 5 of the Act lay down that in order to be elected to parliament or state legislatures one must
be an elector.

The bench also referred to Section 62(5) of the Act. which says no person shall vote at any
election if he is confined in a prison whether under a sentence of imprisonment or transportation
or otherwise or in a lawful custody of the police. The apex court also took notice of the fact that
crimes in politic have risen from 128 to 162 between 2004 and 2009.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (10.07.13) 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. The Court said parliament had exceeded its powers by
enacting the provision Section 8(4) of the Representation of People’s Act that gives a convicted
law-maker the power to remain in office on the ground that appeals have been filed and decision
is pending. But the bench of Justices A. K Patnaik and S.J. Mukhopadhayay, in its 41 page
ruling, clarified that convicted law-makers, whose appeals were pending prior to their verdict,
were saved as it would come into effect prospectively.
The following figures show the miserable condition of criminalisation of politics in India. The
two NGOs have collected information. They are Association for Democratic Rights (ADR) and
National Election Watch (NEW). Our Lok Sabha has 543 members out of this 30% or 162
members have criminal cases against them. 14% members of the Lok Sabha have serious
criminal cases against them. The total number of all state Legislatures in 4032. Out of this 1258
members have criminal cases against them. It is 31% of the total number.

Again 14% have serious criminal cases against them. The 2009 Lok Sabha had 450 tainted faces
out of 543 members. These figures show beyond any shadow of doubt that large numbers of our
law-makers have tainted faces. These tainted law-makers are engaged in making law to make
society free from corruption and all sorts of criminal activities.

The study of ADR and NEW also shows that almost all the national parties are indirectly
encouraging or supporting criminal activities of their members or law-makers. Behind this both
money and muscle power is directly involved According to ADR and National Election watch
(NEW) the criminal activities of the members of national parties are really beyond imagination.
More pathetic condition is the national and regional parties are absolutely indifferent. Not only
members of the legislatures are tainted, the ministers fall in the same category. The Chief
Minister of constituent state is convicted on the ground of embezzlement of public money and
other charges.

The judgment of the Supreme Court has thrown both national and regional parties into
bewilderment. Behind the criminalisation of politics there are muscle power and money power
and these two powers are primarily responsible for all sorts of criminal activities of politicians. If
the judgment of the highest Court is implemented most of the parties will face severe crisis-crisis
of existence.

The purpose of the Supreme court is to free Indian politics from crimes and the recent judgment
aims at this. The Election Commission for pretty long time has been demanding the amendment
of Representation of People’s Act. After the judgment of the Supreme court the stand of the
Election Commission will be strengthened.

Regulatory Commission:

The Independent Regulatory Commission is an important weapon at the hands of the

The private organisations also control major parts and aspects of both state and federal
administration. In fact in USA, the federal government plays minimum role in administrative
system and in providing various services. Because of this the American government felt the
necessity of regulating the activities of the private organisations that provide services. In India
there are also Independent Regulatory Commissions. In recent years the necessity of setting up
of such commissions has increased several times.

The reasons are:

(1) Since India is a welfare and socialism-biased state its role in providing various types of
services for the general welfare of people has enormously increased. On proper and regular
investigation it has been found that there is a gap between the aims of service providers and the
persons getting services. It means that the aims of the authority which provides service remain
unfulfilled-at least substantially. This is undesirable. In order to locate the faults and the
responsibility of persons or authority the necessity of setting up of regulatory commission was
felt.

(2) Indian administrative system more or less belongs to the Open Model of public
administration because outside factors are influencing administration and policy-making
activities of the government. It is unavoidable. How the outside influences or openness of
environment are regulating the manner of people is to be ascertained.

The authority must know how the outside influences are creating problems or crises for the
people. For that purpose the setting up of regulatory commission was felt. India as a part of the
world system cannot stay outside It. Naturally outside forces must influence India’s economy,
politics, social system and administration. The regulatory commission will enable the state
authority to have a clear knowledge of the prevailing situation.

(3) In the economic system of India the private economy and enterprise have crucial and
important role. In India there is a system of private property. It is the duty of administration-both
central and state-to see that the private economy and private property system are working and if
they are adversely affecting the interests of the citizens. Particularly for the purpose the necessity
of regulatory commission has been felt.

(4) The industrialisation, urbanisation and at the same time, the unprecedented growth of social
mobility very often create problems for ordinary citizens and sometimes make them helpless.
These also create problems for administration. It is the duty of a responsible government, with
the aim of ensuring welfare, to see that the citizens are not deprived of their legitimate due and
other privileges. This has led to the setting up of regulatory commissions.

(5) In USA the regulatory commission is a normal feature of public administration. There is a
market economy. The economic issues are determined by the market forces. On experience it has
been found that this may invite onslaught on the basic interests of citizens. As it happened during
the Great Depression of 1930s.

The government was forced to interfere with the market forces. In India the national economy
and property system are considerably regulated by the acts and laws of the central government.
In spite of this there is ample scope of private economy to act independently. In this situation
there has arisen the necessity of regulatory commission and the administrative system of India
has done that job.

(6) One important feature of market economy is that the profit motive of the entrepreneurs is
extremely active and this motive neglects the interests of the consumers. Naturally it is expected
that the government must have enough control over the activities of private enterprises. If this
does not happen the basic interests of the ordinary citizens will be affected.

(7) The developmental process of India is in transition. Many people call India a prismatic
society. Social and economic situations are rapidly changing. A major part of the population is
vulnerable to all these vicissitudes. Since the citizens are not capable to fight this situation a
regulatory system is badly needed. Moreover, the self-interest-seeking persons may exploit the
situation. And, generally, this happens. For this reason it is the duty of the government to have
precautionary measures so that the life, liberty and property of citizens remain safe.

(8) Finally, with the rise of industrial development and general progress of society, the citizens
will face more and more problems and the scope of insecurity will be on the rise. A responsible
government with people’s mandate to govern cannot remain a helpless out-looker when the
citizens are facing problems.