A few days ago, the right to know the criminal antecedents of candidates was upheld by the Manipur High Court in its judgment. The High Court was hearing a plea filed against election petitions urging for the dismissal of election of Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) Member of Legislative Assembly (MLA) Thounaojam Shyamkumar from Andro Assembly Constituency during the 2022 Legislative Assembly polls. The challenge to his election was on the ground of non-disclosure of information regarding the pendency of a criminal case against Shyamkumar.

In its judgment, the High Court had stated that “Voter’s right to know antecedents including criminal past of his candidate contesting election for MP or MLA is much more fundamental and basic for survival of democracy. The voter may think over before making his choice of electing law breakers as law makers” (Para 35)

Political parties are playing a very important role in the democratic structure of India. In the interest of larger public interest and for the smooth functioning of India’s democratic structure, it is necessary for there to be a certain level of transparency. Through its judgments, the Supreme Court has made it mandatory for political parties contesting elections with candidates with criminal antecedents to publish information about the criminal charges filed against them. It is crucial to note here that based on these judgments, in January 2022, the Election Commission of India (ECI) had issued guidelines on the requirement of disclosure of criminal antecedents by candidates and political parties who sponsor them.

As per the said notification by the ECI, the criminal antecedents of the candidate must be published by the running political party on its website along with the reason of their selection. The criminal records will also be needed to be published on television channels and newspapers on three occasions before the poll. The ECI notification also mentioned that it is based on three judgements/orders of the Supreme Court, delivered on February 16, 2018, September 25, 2018 and August 10, 2021 (discussed below).

The jurisprudence on the right of voters to criminal antecedents:

1. Association of Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002)

In the year 1999, a PIL (Public Interest Litigation) had been filed by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) in the Delhi High Court urging for imposing a requirement on the contesting candidates of elections of parliament and state assemblies to disclose the criminal cases pending against them while filing their nomination papers. In November 2000, the Delhi High Court had declared a favourable verdict in the case, requiring the MPs and MLAs to declare the criminal cases pending against them in a sworn affidavit. The Union government had filed a SLP (Special Leave Petition) in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the High Court.

In May 2002, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High Court and established the filing of affidavits by candidates disclosing their criminal antecedents as the right of the voter. The judgment further held that the right to information – the right to know antecedents, including the criminal past, or assets of candidates – was a fundamental right under Article 19 (1) (a) of the Constitution and that the information was fundamental for survival of democracy. It directed the Election Commission to call for information on affidavit from each candidate seeking election to Parliament or the State Legislature as a necessary part of the nomination papers on: whether the candidate has been convicted / acquitted / discharged of any criminal offence in the past – if any, whether the candidate was accused in any pending case of any offenses punishable with imprisonment for two years or more, and in which charge was framed or cognizance taken by the court.

In pursuance of the historic judgment, the Election Commission issued directives to the effect that failure to file an affidavit containing the above mentioned details would result in the nomination paper being deemed incomplete within the meaning of Section 33(1) of the Representation of People’s Act (RP Act) and, therefore, lead to the rejection of candidate’s nomination papers.

Amendment to RP Act: But, the judgment of the High Court and the Supreme Court were circumvented by the Parliament later in the year, who amended the RP Act and added Section 33A and 33B to it. When read together, these sections provided a candidate will not be liable to disclose any information regarding their criminal antecedents.  Thus, these amendments basically reversed the judgement of the Supreme Court.

2. People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India (2003)

The amendment made to Section 33B of the RP (Third Amendment) Act was then challenged before the Supreme Court in the year 2003. Notably, the amendment had nullified the decision given by the Supreme Court in the ADR v. UOI case. The Supreme Court had struck down Section 33B of the act by deeming it to be unconstitutional as it aimed to impose a blanket ban on the dissemination of information by the candidate. The Court held it void as it infringed the “right of electors’ to know”, a constituent of the fundamental right to free speech and expression and hindered free and fair elections, which is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. Subsequent to this judgment, the contesting candidates were mandated to furnish information relating to all pending cases in which cognizance has been taken by a Court, their assets and liabilities, and educational qualifications.

3. Manoj Narula v Union of India (2014)

In the year 2005, a PIL was filed in the Supreme Court which brought forth the issue of appointment of certain Ministers to the Council of Ministers of Union of India even after having been charged for serious or heinous crimes. A constitutional bench of the Supreme Court had then dealt with the question of whether individuals with criminal backgrounds and antecedents or those accused of heinous crimes were fit to be appointed as Ministers in Central and State Governments. In the said case, the Court recognised the limited powers that the Court had in the matters of appointment of Ministers and held that the judiciary was not empowered to read a disqualification not contemplated by the statute into Article 75(1). The majority judgment of three judges left it “to the wisdom of the Prime Minister”, while saying that the prime minister “can always be legitimately expected (to) consider not choosing a person with criminal antecedents against whom charges have been framed for heinous or serious criminal offences or charges of corruption to become a Minister of the Council of Ministers”, and also adding that it “is the constitutional expectation from the Prime Minister”.

4. Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018)

In the year 2011, a PIL was filed by a civil society organisation called Public Interest Foundation in the Supreme Court seeking expansion of the grounds for disqualification of membership in Union and State legislatures. Additionally, the petition urged the Court to disqualify candidates and legislators under the RP Act who have serious criminal charges framed against them by a court or who file false affidavits.

Through the petition, the Supreme Court had been asked to

“(a) lay down appropriate guidelines/ framework to ensure that those charged with serious criminal offences are unable to enter the political arena by contesting elections; and (b) lay down a time frame of six months during which trial of such persons are concluded in a time bound manner”

In regards to the issue of criminalisation of politics, a division bench comprising of former Justices RM Lodha and Shiva Kirti Singh had requested the Law commission to submit a report on the same.

Law commission report on Disqualification (2014): It is crucial to highlight here that while it became mandatory for the candidates to disclose all their criminal antecedents, this resulted in the harmful practice of leaving blank spaces or filling incorrect information in affidavits and nomination papers. This issue was also highlighted by the Law Commission in its Report no. 244 which provided that while the PUCL judgment clarified the obligations of a candidate with respect to the furnishing of information, it was less clear on the consequences if the information provided happened to be false. It held that an officer could not reject nomination papers on the ground that candidate information was false. As a result of this finding, the Election Commission ordered its earlier directive on the rejection of nomination papers non-enforceable. The said report had also held that disqualification upon conviction had proved ineffective in preventing the criminalization of politics.

The issue of non-furnishing of any information on crucial information related to criminal records or any other part of the history of the candidate in an attempt to avoid perjury was also highlighted. In view of this, the Report had recommended a punishment for filing of false affidavits be enhanced to minimum 2 years imprisonment and such an offence must also be made a ground for disqualification. Accordingly, it was also suggested that the trials in all such cases must be conducted on a day-to-day basis so as to ensure the necessary conviction that precedes disqualification.

In order to avoid perjury, candidates would not furnish any information on crucial questions relating to criminal history or assets. This practice was challenged later. As stated in the EC’s Report no. 244 on Electoral Disqualifications, while the 2003 PUCL judgment clarified the obligations of a candidate with respect to the furnishing of information, it was less clear on the consequences if the information provided happened to be false. It held that a Returning Officer could not reject nomination papers on the ground that candidate information was false. As a result of this finding, the Election Commission ordered its earlier directive on the rejection of nomination papers non-enforceable.

Judgment: A unanimous judgment was delivered by the Constitutional bench of the Supreme Court had held that the Court cannot introduce new rules under the RP Act that would disqualify such candidates against whom criminal charges have been framed from contesting elections. The bench had left it to the parliament to make a law that prevents candidates accused of serious crimes from entering politics.

The bench had comprised the then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and former Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar and Indu Malhotra. The current Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud was also a part of the bench. The bench had stated “It is one thing to take cover under the presumption of innocence of the accused but it is equally imperative that persons who enter public life and participate in law making should be above any kind of serious criminal allegation. It is true that false cases are foisted on prospective candidates, but the same can be addressed by the Parliament through appropriate legislation. The nation eagerly waits for such legislation, for the society has a legitimate expectation to be governed by proper constitutional governance. The voters cry for systematic sustenance of constitutionalism. The country feels agonized when money and muscle power become the supreme power. Substantial efforts have to be undertaken to cleanse the polluted stream of politics by prohibiting people with criminal antecedents so that they do not even 100 conceive of the idea of entering into politics.”

On the issue of criminal antecedents, the Court directed that the same must be clearly stated by the candidates in the nomination forms. The concerned political party and the candidate were required to give wide publicity to the criminal antecedents by advertising them thrice in widely circulated newspapers of the area and also in electronic media after the filing of nomination papers. The following directions were passed by the Court:

“1. Each contesting candidate shall fill up the form as provided by the Election Commission and the form must contain all the particulars as required therein.

2. It shall state, in bold letters, with regard to the criminal cases pending against the candidate.
3. If a candidate is contesting an election on the ticket of a particular party, he/she is required to inform the party about the criminal cases pending against him/her.
4. The political party concerned shall be obligated to put up on its website the aforesaid information pertaining to candidates having criminal antecedents.
5. The candidate as well as the political party concerned shall issue a declaration in the widely circulated newspapers in the locality about the antecedents of the candidate and also give wide publicity in the electronic media. When we say wide publicity, we mean that the same shall be done at least thrice after filing of the nomination papers.”

It is also essential to note that in one of its orders of March 2104, the Court had directed for conducting speedy and expeditious trials against those MPs and MLAs against whom charges are framed. In its 2014 order, the court had stated that cases against ministers must be decided as expeditiously as may be possible and in no case later than one year from the date of the framing of charge(s).

5. Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora (2020)

In February 2020, a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising of former Justices R F Nariman and Ravindra Bhat had delivered a judgment in the contempt petition arising out of the aforementioned Public Interest Foundation case. The bench was hearing contempt petitions filed by Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay and Rambabu Singh Thakur complaining that Election Commission of India had failed to comply with the directions laid down by the Constitution Bench in 2018 with respect to decriminalization of politics.

The division bench had taken a note of the rising criminalisation of politics and had also directed that all political parties are required to publish the details of criminal antecedents of their candidates in the Lok Sabha and Assembly polls within 48 hours of selection of the candidate or within two weeks of nomination, whichever is earlier. Furthermore, the Supreme Court had also asked the Election Commission to report to the Supreme Court regarding any non-compliance by political parties. In addition to this, the bench had also warned the political parties of contempt action in case of failure to comply with the directions passed by the court.

The Court observed that candidates must be selected on the basis of merit and achievement. The reasons for selecting a candidate must be published by the party. “Winnability cannot be the only reason for selecting a candidate with criminal antecedents”, the bench had pointedly remarked.

6. Brajesh Singh vs. Sunil Arora (2021)

The Supreme Court bench comprising former Justice RF Nariman and Justice BR Gavai had heard contempt petitions alleging flouting of Supreme Court directives by eight political parties. The petitions had highlighted that the directives publishing information regarding electoral candidates by political parties were not abided by during the Bihar Legislative Assembly elections of October/November, 2020. In August 2021, the bench had found the said eight parties to have violated the directions of the Supreme Court and imposed fines on them for committing contempt of court.

Notably, a sum of rupees five lakhs had been imposed as fine on Communist Party of India (Marxist) and Nationalist Congress Party each. The court had noted that CPI(M) and NCP were the two parties who has not submitted both the required Form C7 or C8 for any of its candidates and held the two to be fully non-compliant. In addition to this, the court had directed Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Indian National Congress, Janta Dal, Rashtriya Janata Dal (United), Communist Party of India and Lok Janshakti Party to pay a fine of rupees one lakh each.

B.L. Santosh v. Brijesh Singh and others (Review Petition): Notably, in February 2023, a special bench of former Justice Dinesh Maheshwari and Justice B.R. Gavai had recalled the fine of Rs 1 lakh on the BJP for contempt of court. In its judgment, the bench had noted that there was no wilful or deliberate disobedience of the court order. The review petition had been allowed by the Supreme Court in November 2021.

7. Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil v. K. Madan Mohan Rao & Ors. (2023)

In the said case, a division bench of the Supreme Court comprising former Justice S Ravindra Bhat and Justice Aravind Kumar had held it to be a full right of the voter to be informed about the background of an electoral candidate. In its judgment, the bench had observed that “The elector or voter’s right to know about the full background of a candidate- evolved through court decisions- is an added dimension to the rich tapestry of our constitutional jurisprudence.”

The court had also emphasized the right of a voter to make an informed choice, a right that had been a result of our long fight for India. The Supreme Court stated “the right to vote, based on an informed choice, is a crucial component of the essence of democracy. This right is precious and was the result of a long and arduous fight for freedom, for Swaraj, where the citizen has an inalienable right to exercise her or his right to franchise. This finds articulation in Article 326 of the Constitution.”

In addition to this, the bench had deemed it to be paradoxical that the right to vote has not been held to be a fundamental right, though democracy forms a part of the basic features of the Constitution.  Notably, the bench was considering a challenge to the order of the Telangana High Court that dismissed an application seeking rejection of the election petition filed against Bhim Rao Baswanth Rao Patil, the appellant. The election petition had been filed for non-disclosure of certain pending cases against him. The appellant had contended that the election petition did not disclose any cause of action and was liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Disqualification of electoral candidates

Section 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 outlines criteria for disqualification of contesting candidates from membership to Parliament and State Legislature. The section elaborates on the criteria for disqualification of an electoral candidate in cases where they are convicted for certain offences such as corruption, rape, terrorism, etc.

If an electoral candidate files false information, conceals information or fails to furnish any of the required information, action against such a candidate can be initiated under Section 125A of the RP Act. The said section specifies the penalty for committing the aforementioned acts, which is “imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both.”

However, it is crucial to highlight here that a punishment granted under Section 125A of the RP Act has not been included in the list of offences under Section 8 of the Act. As penalty for filing a false affidavit does not find itself included in the criteria for disqualification of election candidates, no real consequence can be associated with committing acts under Section 125A. The lack of consequence undermines the value that is associated with the right of a voter to know the criminal antecedents, assets and liabilities of an electoral candidate

Necessary teeth to the law?

Through the developing jurisprudence highlighted above, since 2002 to 2023, the Supreme Court has highlighted the right of a voter to know the criminal antecedents of an electoral candidate, deeming it to be a part of the fundamental rights guaranteed to the citizens. Through its 2018 judgment, the Supreme Court has provided five necessities, in regards to providing information on their criminal record, which the electoral candidate has to abide by while filing their forms. While the electoral candidates have been required to submit details of their criminal cases to the poll panel through an affidavit following the 2002 judgement, the 2018 judgement expanded the scope by making it necessary to publish this information on party website, newspaper and television channel. In the 2020 judgment, the court also specified that the political parties will have to state the reasons for fielding candidates with criminal background other than the issue of ‘winnability’. And yet, there has been no direction by the Supreme Court which provides for the automatic disqualification of candidates who file false affidavits or conceal information. If an act is hampering a citizen’s fundamental right, should there not be any direction by the court that ensures such infringement? As it has been highlighted above, in this regard, the Court cited the doctrine of separation of powers and recommended the parliament to make a law that prevents candidates accused of serious crimes from entering politics. No such law has been formulated by the Parliament, which raises the question on the enforcement of the directions and suggestions given by the top most Court in India. Therefore, while the Supreme Court has taken exceptional steps in increasing accountability and ensuring transparency, issues such as monitoring of filing of affidavits, consequences of filing false affidavits, inclusion of disqualification under Section 125A under Section 8 of the RP Act and prevention of candidates with criminal records from entering politics remain to be addressed adequately.

Related:

Manipur High Court: Right to cast vote an integral part of Article 19(1)(a), affirms voters right to know criminal antecedents

CJP moves Election Commission against Kailash Vijayvargiya speech offering money in return for votes

ECI undertaking to SC: Aadhaar number not mandatory to enrol as voter

The Missing Indian Voter, how many crores of Indians are missing from the electoral rolls?

Election Commission of India says voters’ names not to be removed without prior notice

The post Jurisprudential development of a right of a voter to know the criminal antecedents of an electoral candidate appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As many as 67 out of 345 candidates contesting in the phase 2 Assam Assembly Elections declared criminal cases against themselves, as per the Assam Election Watch and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) on March 23, 2021.

According to the ADR report, 30 candidates (9 percent) contesting across 39 constituencies in the state declared serious criminal cases against themselves, while 37 (11 percent) candidates declared criminal charges in their self-sworn affidavits.

Among major political parties, 11 out of 34 Bharatiya Janata Party-BJP candidates (32 percent) face criminal charges and 10 candidates (29 percent) are charged with serious criminal cases. In the case of the Indian National Congress-INC, 5 out of 28 candidates (18 percent) declared criminal charges and 2 persons (7 percent) faced serious charges.

Meanwhile, the All India United Democratic Front (AIUDF) has 7 candidates of whom 5 candidates (71 percent) and 3 candidates (43 percent) face criminal and serious criminal charges. Political parties such as the Asom Gana Parishad (6 candidates) and the Assam Jatiya Parishad (19 candidates) have 2 candidates (33 percent) and 3 candidates (16 percent) facing criminal charges repseticely. Similarly, 2 AGP candidates and 3 AJP candidates face serious criminal charges.

Other parties such as AIFB, SUCI (C) and United Peoples Party Liberal have one candidate in each category.

Out of all candidates, three persons have declared cases related to crime against women. One person is charged with cases related to sexual assault. Three candidates face murder cases while two candidates are charged with attempt to murder.

Regarding constituencies, 2 concerned areas (5 percent) are Red alert constituencies where three or more contesting candidates have criminal cases. Accordingly, the report noted that parties ignored the Supreme Court directions of February 13, 2020 instructing them to reason selection of individuals with criminal antecedents. Reasons for such selection has to be with reference to qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned.

“Political parties in selection of candidates in Phase II of the Assam Assembly Elections 2021… have again followed their old practice of giving tickets to around 11 percent candidates with criminal cases. All major parties… have given tickets ranging from 16 percent to 71 percent candidates who have declared criminal cases against themselves,” said the report.

During recent Bihar Assembly elections in October, 2020 it was observed that political parties gave unfounded and baseless reasons like popularity of the person, social work, or claims of politically-motivated cases.

“These are not sound and cogent reasons for fielding candidates with tainted backgrounds. This data clearly shows that political parties have no interest in reforming the electoral system and our democracy will continue to suffer at the hands of lawbreakers who become lawmakers,” said the ADR.

Regarding financial background, it said that 73 out of the 345 candidates (21 percent) are crorepatis with 21 people having assets above Rs. 5 crores and 28 people with assets between Rs. 2-5 crores.

As many as 19 out of 34 BJP candidates (56 percent,) 18 out of 28 INC candidates (56 percent), 6 out of 19 AJP candidates (32 percent), 5 out of 7 AIUDF candidates (71 percent), 3 out of 4 Bodoland Peoples Front candidates (75 percent) and 3 out of 6 AGP candidates (50 percent) declared assets valued more than Rs 1 crore.

Overall, the average of assets per candidate is Rs. 2.19 crores with party-wise average asserts as follows: Rs. 2.74 crores for 34 BJP candidates; Rs 4.78 crores for 28 INC candidates; Rs 88.70 lakhs for 19 Assam Jatiya Parishad candidates; Rs 21.25 crores for 7 AIUDF candidates; Rs 1.13 Crore for 6 AGP candidates; Rs. 25.43 Lakhs for 13 SUCI (C) candidates.

Further details about candidates may be read here:

Related:

National political parties declared assets over Rs. 5,000 crore in FY 2018-19: ADR report

The EVM Conundrum: Concerns over EVMs not invalid, must be addressed

Support grows for Migrant Workers’ Right to Vote

15 UP bye-elections candidates charged with serious criminal cases: ADR

The post 30 Assam election candidates face serious criminal cases: ADR appeared first on SabrangIndia.

This decline in vote-share is significant because in nearly 20% of the seats contested across UP in 2017, the winner was decided by a margin of 3 percentage points or less, the study, Coordinating Voters against Criminal Politicians: Evidence from a Mobile Experiment in India, released in November 2018, said.

Uttar Pradesh has the largest proportion of candidates with criminal charges fielded by major political parties such as the Samajwadi Party, Bharatiya Janata Party, Congress and Bahujan Samaj Party, IndiaSpend reported on March 10, 2017.

The Election Commission of India made it compulsory for candidates to advertise their criminal antecedents on TV and in newspapers at least thrice during electioneering, NDTV reported on October 11, 2018.

The study shows the potential of mobile phone-based information campaigns in helping voters make informed choices.

In the 2017 UP assembly elections, the proportion of candidates with serious criminal cases almost doubled to 15% and of candidates with criminal cases dropped one percentage point to 18% over the previous election in 2012, according to data from the Association of Democratic Reforms, an NGO.

In the 2018 assembly elections in the Hindi heartland states of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Chhattisgarh (in the second phase of elections), nearly 9%, 11% and 9% of candidates, respectively, had serious criminal charges against them.

Four types of messages before polls
The present study ran randomised control trials in 3,800 villages. Control villages received no messages, while for villages in which messages were sent, the recipients were chosen randomly. In all, 450,000 people received at least one voice message and one text message two days before the election.

The messages were any of the following four:

1. Basic information message: These urged recipients to get to know their candidates and think carefully before casting their vote, and additionally provided recipients with information on the number and type of criminal charges, if any, against all of their major party candidates.
2. Information plus coordination message: These basic information messages were accompanied by content informing voters that many other residents of their area had received the same message.
3. Information plus ethnic-voting message: In these messages, voters were provided criminality information and additionally urged to break the habit of voting along caste lines.
4. Women’s mobilisation message: These contained the same request that recipients must get to know their candidates and think carefully before voting, plus a message to encourage higher female turnout.
5.  

Source: Coordinating Voters against Criminal Politicians: Evidence from a Mobile Experiment in India (November, 2018)

The study chose villages with a population greater than 150 and less than 5,150 and “excluded villages in the bottom percentile in terms of village-level population share covered as Vodafone+Idea subscribers (corresponding to roughly a 10.6% coverage rate or lower)”.
The study was supported by J-PAL Governance Initiative, the Harvard Lab for Economic Applications and Policy, and the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs. They partnered with three Indian telecom companies–Idea, Airtel and Vodafone.

Candidates with murder charges lost vote share
The study found that among those with murder charges, there was an overall decrease in votes of 12%. Those with attempted-murder charges saw a smaller decline in votes of 5%, and those with non-murder-related charges saw almost no difference in votes.

In a set of polling stations in constituencies where at least one candidate had a murder-related charge, the total votes across all candidates without any criminal charge increased by an average of 6.7% and votes for candidates with murder-related charges dropped by 7.7%. “These effects, together with a statistically insignificant increase in votes for candidates with only non-murder-related criminal charges, yield a combined increase in total turnout of 1.6%,” the study noted.

The experiment found that in polling stations where no candidates had a murder-related charge, the positive impact on votes for “clean” candidates disappeared. This showed that “having the reference point of a competing candidate with a severe criminal charge is needed for the information treatment to increase votes for non-criminally-charged candidates”, the study noted.

There is no bar on candidates charged in criminal cases from contesting elections in India. The Supreme Court refused to bar candidates facing criminal charges from contesting elections, leaving the matter in the hands of parliament, Livemint reported on September 25, 2018.
Earlier, in November 2017, the Supreme Court had asked the government to devise a scheme to set up special courts for trying criminal cases against legislators, Live Law reported on December 14, 2017. The central government had informed the court that special courts would dispose of all 1,581 criminal cases pending against politicians in one year, the report added.

Impact of coordination
The impact on “clean” candidates was different with a coordination message, relative to only basic information.

There was a 0.8-percentage-point decline in the vote share of candidates with murder-related charges in polling stations that received the basic information treatment, and a 1.5-percentage-point decline for stations that received the ethnic-voting message, the study noted. However, the vote share of those candidates at polling stations that received coordination messages declined by a larger 2.5 percentage points.

Overall, those facing murder charges experienced a 12% decline in the number of votes they received, leading to a 3-percentage-point decline in their vote share. “This is a non-trivial magnitude when we consider the winning margins of the election we targeted with this campaign. Of the 403 races held across UP in 2017, roughly 20% were determined by a margin of 3 percentage points or less,” the study noted.

(Paliath is an analyst with IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend

The post After Messaging Campaign, Candidates Facing Murder Charges See 12% Decline In Votes, 3-Percentage-Point Decline In Vote Share appeared first on SabrangIndia.

No more than 6% of criminal cases against India’s MPs and MLAs ended in conviction, according to data submitted by the Centre to the Supreme Court.

Of 3,884 such cases–conviction for which results in a six-year ban from contesting elections–guilty judgements were pronounced in 38 and 560 were acquitted, the Centre told the Supreme Court on September 11, 2018.

Source: Centre’s affidavit in Supreme Court, dated September 11, 2018

In 18 of 29 states and two of seven union territories, there were no convictions for criminal cases against MPs and MLAs; the cases include murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, hate speech and criminal intimidation.

The highest number of acquittals were in Kerala (147 acquittals, 8 convictions), Tamil Nadu (68 acquitals, 3 convictions) and Bihar (48 acquittals, 0 convictions).

The highest number of convictions were in Orissa (10), Kerala (8) and Uttar Pradesh (5).

The affidavit was submitted during a hearing of a two-year-old public interest litigation, which demanded a life ban for politicians convicted in criminal cases. On December 14, 2017, the court ordered the Centre to set up 12 special courts to deal with such cases, asking the courts to start working from March 1, 2018.

With a budget of Rs 7.8 crore, courts were established in Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal and two special courts in the National Capital Territory of Delhi. The other 19 states and one union territory were to fast-track pending cases.

Six months after the March deadline, 40% (1,233) of these cases were transferred to the special courts, of which judgements were pronounced in 136 (11%); 89% (1,097) cases so transferred are pending.

Source: Centre’s affidavit in Supreme Court, dated September 11, 2018
Note: The notification to set up a special court in Tamil Nadu was issued on September 6, 2018, and the special court in Uttar Pradesh started working from August 21, 2018. Transfer of cases to both these courts continues.

The highest number of pending cases among the states where special courts were set up was in Bihar (249), followed by West Bengal (226) and Kerala (233).

In Kerala and West Bengal, only one case each has been disposed. In Uttar Pradesh, which had the highest number of cases (565), the special court started functioning on August 21, 2018. In Tamil Nadu, where 402 cases were filed against legislators, the notification for the special court was issued on September 6, 2018.

Source: Centre’s affidavit in Supreme Court, dated March 12, 2018

*Data for Maharashtra and Goa sourced from Centre’s affidavit in Supreme Court, dated September 11, 2018

These cases should be fast-tracked, especially as four state elections (Mizoram, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh) and the Lok Sabha elections will be conducted over the next eight months, Major General Anil Verma (Retired), National Coordinator of Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), an advocacy, told IndiaSpend.

In 2014, ADR, along with National Election Watch (NEW), a campaign comprising of 1,200 non-governmental organisations working on electoral reforms, analysed the self-sworn affidavits of 542 of 543 winners in the 2014 Lok Sabha elections and found that a candidate with a criminal background was almost twice more likely to win than a candidate with no criminal background. The winning chances of a candidate with criminal background were 13%, while those of a candidate with no criminal background were 5%.

“People feel these legislators with criminal backgrounds have clout, and they are able to get work done from bureaucrats or lower level functionaries of the government,” said Verma, “In rural areas, people do not give too much importance to criminal cases. They think, ‘if he gets our work done, it is okay, we will vote for him.’”  

The petition in the Supreme Court argued that current provisions of the Representatives of People’s Act (1951) for convicted legislators are not enough. The petitioner and a spokesperson of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, Ashwini Upadhyay, told IndiaSpend that a ban for six years is not enough.

“The bar for legislators has to be set higher than that for other civil servants,” said Upadhyay. “Civil servants are suspended the moment the police files a chargesheet against them and are allowed to resume work only when the court acquits them. But so many politicians continue to hold posts despite several cases against them, including those of rape, kidnapping, murder and hate speech.”

An analysis by ADR in April 2018 found that 48 legislators had criminal cases filed against them for crimes against women. In another report released in April 2018, ADR found 58 legislators have cases registered against them on charges related to hate speech.

(Shreya Raman is a data analyst at IndiaSpend.)

Courtesy: India Spend

The post As Elections Loom, Conviction Rate In Criminal Cases Against India’s MPs/MLAs: 6% appeared first on SabrangIndia.

As for wealth, 35 UP ministers are ‘crorepatis’, while Punjab has nine.

UP Election Watch and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has analysed the self-sworn affidavits of 44 out of 47 ministers from the state assembly.

Three ministers namely Dinesh Sharma, Swatantra Dev Singh and Mohsin Raza have not been analysed due to unavailability of data. Dinesh Sharma is a mayor whereas the other two are not currently members of either any house, UP state assembly or legislative council.

“Out of the 44 ministers, 35 (80 per cent) are crorepatis. The average assets of 44 ministers is Rs 5.34 crore,” Delhi-based ADR said in a report released today.

Besides, it said, 20 (45 per cent) ministers have declared criminal cases against them.

It listed the charges against them that included robbery, theft, forgery and voluntarily causing hurt.

The minister with the highest declared total assets is Nand Gopal Gupta Nandi from Allahabad South constituency with assets worth Rs 57.11 crore, it said.

Chief Minister Adityanath has total assets worth over Rs 71 lakh, while deputy CM Keshav Prasad has total assets of over Rs 9 crore, the report added.

A total of 28 ministers have declared liabilities out of which the minister with the highest liabilities is Nand Gopal Gupta Nandi (Rs 26.02 crore).

On education details, it said, a total of seven (16 per cent) ministers have declared their qualification to be between 10th and 12th pass, while 37 (84 pc) are graduates or have higher degrees.

A total of 18 (41 pc) ministers have declared their age to be between 25-50 years, while 26 (59 pc) between 51-80 years.

Out of 44 ministers, only five are women.

On Punjab, ADR said out of the 10 ministers, nine (90 pc) are crorepatis.

“The average assets of 10 ministers is Rs 34.54 crore.

The minister with the highest declared total assets is Rana Gurjit Singh from Kapurthala constituency with assets worth Rs 169.89 crore,” it said.

Chief Minister Amarinder Singh has total assets worth over Rs 48 crore, the report showed.

A total of eight ministers have declared liabilities out of which the minister with the highest liabilities is Rana Gurjit Singh (Rs 81.71 crore).

As per the report, a total of 6 (60 pc) ministers are graduates or have higher degrees, while four have qualification between 10th pass and 12th pass.

All 10 ministers have declared their age to be between 50-75 years. Of these, only two are women.

Courtesy: Janta Ka Reporter

The post UP govt has 20 ministers with criminal cases, Punjab has 2 appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Uttar Pradesh Election Watch and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) have analysed the self-sworn affidavits of 719 of 721 candidates from 92 political parties, including 6 national parties, 6 state parties, 80 unrecognised parties and 206 independent candidates who are contesting in the second phase of polls.

"Out of 719 candidates analysed, 107 (15 per cent) candidates have declared criminal cases against themselves. 84 (12 per cent) candidates have declared serious criminal cases, including cases related to murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, crimes against women etc," ADR said in a report released today.

It further noted that 16 out of 67 candidates from BJP, 25 of 67 from BSP, 6 of 52 from RLD, 21 of 51 from SP, 6 of 18 from Indian National Congress and 13 of 206 independent candidates have declared criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.

ADR said that out of 719 candidates, 256 are crorepatis adding that 58 from BSP, 50 from BJP, 45 from SP, 13 from INC, 15 from RLD and 36 independent candidates have declared assets worth more than Rs 1 crore.

The average asset per candidate contesting in the second phase of UP elections is Rs 2.01 crore.

Among major parties, the average assets per candidate for 18 INC candidates is Rs 3.37 crore, 67 BJP candidates (Rs 4.07 crore), 67 BSP candidates (Rs 7.20 crore), 52 RLD candidates (Rs 1.51 crore), 51 SP candidates (Rs 3.43 crore) and 206 independent candidates (Rs 60.63 lakh), it said.

According to the report, a total of 174 candidates have not declared their PAN details.

On the education details of candidates, it said, 277 have declared their qualification to be between 5th and 12th, while 310 have declared having a qualification of graduate or above. 93 candidates have declared themselves to be just literates and 11 illiterate.

The report further said that 475 candidates have declared their age to be between 25 and 50 years, while 233 between 51 and 80 years.

In second phase of UP election this year, 69 female candidates are contesting.
 

The post UP Polls: 107 with criminal cases, 256 crorepatis in phase 2 appeared first on SabrangIndia.