Can law clean up Indian politics?

It should be up to political parties to generate awareness against criminal politicians

Will Parliament be purged of criminal politicians who have previously been able to retain their seats despite being convicted of serious crimes? Political pundits are of the view that it is too early to predict anything. Major political parties have already begun preparing for the general elections, which are scheduled to be held in May 2014, and politicians are already beginning to focus as much on politicking as on policy making.

 

Crime and politics are known to make compatible bedfellows. Criminals bribe and intimidate their way into office for the protection it affords and the opportunities it offers for recouping their investments. In a landmark verdict aimed at decriminalising power politics, the Supreme Court has said a convicted lawmaker can no longer seek cover behind a pending appeal. The apex court judgment to break the umbilical cord between criminals and politics will come to a naught. 

And, in the realm of Indian politics the more things change the more they remain the same. Consider this: when Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar denied tickets to candidates with criminal antecedents, their better halves became lawmakers. So, the tainted leaders still call the shots in the House, albeit by proxy.  Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD) chief Lalu Prasad, stood down as Bihar's Chief Minister in 1997, when he was arrested on corruption charges, but installed his wife Rabri Devi as his proxy.  He still faces charges in the Rs 900 crore fodder scam case. However, the SC giving a voice to a sentiment shared by millions, the judgment is bound to affect electoral politics.

 

 

The ruling means that charge-sheeted MPs and MLAs, on conviction for the offences, will be immediately disqualified from holding membership of the House without being given three months time for appeal, as was the case before. Till now, unlike a common man, a convicted lawmaker could have continued in his or her position for three months. If an appeal was filed in a higher court within the three months, the lawmaker’s status would not have been affected till it was disposed of.

The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government, who has lost a string of ministers to corruption charges, said it would hold consultations before deciding the course of action. In the case of a coalition government surviving on a razor thin majority, conviction of an MP or MLA can make or break the government. No matter who wins the next general elections, a significant number of the seats in the next Lok Sabha will be held by politicians with a tainted past -- or criminals who happen to be in politics.

 

The offences that can activate the disqualification include some that carry a minimum punishment of six months. The offences — listed in Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act — range from adulteration of food products to booth capturing to murder. Promoting enmity on the basis of religion, race, place of birth and language also figures on the list.

 

Section 8(4)  RP Act says disqualification of a sitting MP or MLA “shall not” take effect until his appeal, moved against the first conviction within three months, is finally decided by the appellate court.

The apex court has taken away the protection to legislators offered by Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the RP Act, 1951 by ruling that it is unconstitutional.

“If a person has no right to vote (if convicted of a crime), he has no right to contest,” Judges AK Patnaik and SJ Mukhopadhyay ruled.

 

In fact, jail term is not mandatory for the disqualification to kick in. Conviction and the nature of offence are the deciding factors. For example, if a lawmaker is convicted of a terror charge or a corruption charge that carries a fine but not imprisonment, he or she will be disqualified.

 

The bench also declined to accept the contention that legislators would be defenceless against frivolous convictions.
______________________________________

 

Here is the full text of the judgement:

 

SC order on Representation of Peoples Act

______________________________________

 

The SC decision is significant considering the fact that India has 1,460 sitting MP's and MLA's with a criminal background. An analysis provided by non governmental organisations Association for Democratic Reforms and National Election Watch states the following:

 

A) Of 543 Lok Sabha MPs, 162 have criminal cases pending against them

 

B) 1,460 (30%) out of a total of 4,807 sitting MPs and MLAs analysed by the ADR and NEW have declared criminal cases against themselves in their self-sworn affidavits submitted to the Election Commission of India prior to contesting elections.

 

C) 688 (14%) out of the total number of sitting MPs and MLAs analysed have declared serious criminal cases against themselves.

 

Sword hangs over many 

. Lalu Prasad awaits a court verdict relating to the fodder scam, and now his potential candidature in the future hangs on the balance. A Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) court was schedule to deliver on Monday (July 15) its verdict in the fodder scam case, the RJD boss moved the SC which stayed the fodder trial proceedings. It may impact politics in Bihar, already seeing realignments.

. Former Union minister Shibu Soren was convicted of conspiracy to murder his former private secretary. Had conviction been a disqualification then, he would have been disqualified as MP.

. Tamil Nadu Chief minister Jayalalithaa (AIADMK), facing a disproportionate assets case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, could find herself disqualified if convicted.

. DMK president Karunanidhi’s daughter Kanimozhi and former Union minister A Raja could lose their Parliament seats if found guilty in the 2G case.

. Had Wednesday's verdict carried retrospective effect, Om Prakash Chautala, the former Haryana chief minister and now an MLA, may have lost his Assembly seat in January when he was sentenced to 10 years in jail in a teacher recruitment scam.

. Navjot Sidhu chose not to invoke law when convicted of culpable homicide. resigned as MP, appealed, earned stay, re-contested and won

 

SC on crime and politics 

 

2005

 

Five-judge Supreme Court bench upholds section 8(4) as a reasonable classification that does not violate Article 14 of Constitution (right to equality).

 

2013

 

Two-judge bench examines section 8(4) in context of Constitution’s Articles 101 and 102, which provide for immediate disqualification of a convicted MP/MLA