In India, the reality of politics is often marked by the deep-rooted presence of politicians with criminal records. Individuals facing serious criminal allegations regularly contest elections and, in many instances, are elected to positions of power. In a democracy, elected representatives are expected to uphold and protect the law; therefore, the presence of individuals accused of violating it in positions of authority creates a serious contradiction. It also raises concerns about public trust in political institutions when those entrusted with making laws themselves face criminal allegations.
Why Does Criminalisation Of Politics Persist?
Why does this persist? Several factors within the political system contribute to it. Electoral campaigns are highly expensive, favoring financially powerful candidates who can mobilise resources and exercise influence through money and muscle power. At the same time, the slow pace of the judicial process allows criminal cases to remain pending for years, enabling accused candidates to continue participating in electoral politics. Political parties also play a significant role by prioritizing “winnability”- the perceived ability of a candidate to secure electoral victory over the candidate’s ethical background.
The law itself also presents a significant gap. Under Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, disqualification is generally linked to conviction for specified offences rather than merely the framing of criminal charges. When combined with prolonged judicial proceedings, this allows candidates facing serious criminal charges to remain electorally active for extended periods. This combination of legal limitations and judicial delays raises a larger question: Can disclosure alone effectively address the criminalisation of politics?
The Legal Gap: Charges, Conviction And Judicial Delay
The judiciary has attempted to strengthen accountability through landmark judgments. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India, the Supreme Court held that legislators attracting statutory disqualification upon conviction must be disqualified immediately, thereby removing the protection that had previously allowed convicted legislators to continue in office during the pendency of an appeal.
However, in Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India, the Supreme Court, while recognising criminalisation of politics as a serious threat to democratic governance, declined to introduce disqualification merely at the stage of framing of charges. Instead, the Court emphasized greater disclosure and publicity of candidates’ criminal antecedents.
The distinction between facing criminal proceedings and being legally disqualified from contesting an election can be illustrated by the case of Sheikh Abdul Rashid, who contested the 2024 Lok Sabha election while in custody and was subsequently elected. The case demonstrates that the pendency of criminal proceedings does not, by itself, operate as a general disqualification from contesting elections.
Despite these judicial and statutory safeguards, the existing framework remains limited by its reliance on conviction and the prolonged duration of criminal proceedings. The resulting gap between the commencement of criminal proceedings and their eventual resolution allows candidates facing serious allegations to remain electorally active for extended periods, highlighting the need for carefully designed reforms.
When Winnability Beats Integrity
Political parties play a central role in candidate selection and are therefore important actors in addressing the criminalisation of politics. One of the primary considerations guiding candidate selection is “winnability” the perceived ability of a candidate to secure electoral victory. In practice, candidates with substantial financial resources, local influence and organizational support may be viewed as more electorally effective, even where their criminal antecedents raise concerns about their suitability for public office.
The pursuit of electoral success can therefore place political parties in tension with considerations of integrity in public life. Despite increasing judicial emphasis on transparency and electoral accountability, parties may continue to field candidates facing serious criminal charges where those candidates are perceived to have a greater chance of winning. This risks normalising the presence of criminal elements within electoral politics and weakens the emphasis on ethical standards in public representation. The importance of transparency and integrity in elections has also been recognised in Kuldip Nayar v. Union of India.
A related concern is the institutional tolerance shown towards candidates with criminal backgrounds. Candidates perceived to possess significant influence or “money and muscle power” may be preferred over candidates with cleaner backgrounds but fewer electoral resources. This creates barriers for candidates who may satisfy higher standards of public integrity but lack comparable political or financial influence. The recommendations of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution regarding electoral reforms further demonstrate the need to strengthen the existing framework.
Political parties are therefore important gatekeepers of democratic representation, and meaningful efforts to address criminalisation must extend beyond individual candidates to the processes through which parties select and support them.
Why Disclosure Does Not Necessarily Change Voter Behaviour
Voter behaviour also plays an important role in shaping the persistence of criminalisation in politics. In some cases, voters may be aware of a candidate’s criminal background but continue to support the candidate because of practical considerations such as perceived effectiveness, accessibility and the ability to address local issues. This can create a preference for the “best among the available options”, rather than a choice based solely on ethical considerations. Scholarly work such as Why India Votes by Mukulika Banerjee highlights the influence of factors including social identity, public trust and everyday interactions between candidates and voters on electoral behaviour.
However, empirical realities indicate that information alone does not automatically translate into electoral rejection. In an exploratory primary survey conducted among 70 respondents aged 25–40, 85.5% acknowledged general awareness that candidates in Indian elections frequently have pending criminal cases. Yet, 72.5% of respondents reported that they did not actively verify the specific criminal antecedents or affidavits of candidates before casting their vote. The survey was exploratory and is not intended to be representative of the broader Indian electorate.
Beyond Disclosure: From Information To Accountability
Addressing criminalisation of politics requires moving beyond disclosure towards timely adjudication and greater institutional accountability. Prolonged criminal proceedings can allow candidates facing serious allegations to remain active in electoral politics for years without a final determination. Dedicated mechanisms for expediting criminal trials involving elected representatives and candidates could reduce such delays while preserving the accused’s right to a fair trial. At the same time, any reform concerning disqualification at the stage of framing charges must carefully balance electoral integrity with the presumption of innocence and safeguards against politically motivated prosecutions. Political parties must also take greater responsibility for candidate selection rather than relying solely on perceived electoral “winnability.”
Ultimately, disclosure remains an essential component of a free and fair electoral process, but it cannot be treated as the complete solution to criminalisation of politics. Information can empower voters, but it cannot by itself reduce judicial delay, alter political-party incentives or eliminate the influence of money and muscle power. The challenge is therefore to move from a system that merely informs voters about criminal antecedents to one that creates meaningful institutional accountability. Disclosure should not be the destination of electoral reform, but its starting point.
Written By: Mihir Maru is a law student at SVKM’s Pravin Gandhi College of Law, Mumbai. His academic and research interests include constitutional law, statutory interpretation, and electoral reforms.
Important Links
- Lawyers in India
- Copyright Registration in India
- Caveat Filing in Supreme Court of India
- Mutual Consent Divorce in Delhi/NCR: WhatsApp 9650499965
