The Supreme Court judgment ordering political parties to publish the “entire criminal history” of their candidates for the Assembly and Lok Sabha elections and the reasons for their selection is one more step in the judiciary’s endeavour to make politics free of criminals (Front page, “Publish criminal history of candidates, SC orders parties,” Feb. 14). But this verdict may not actually prevent parties from fielding candidates with criminal cases, as they can escape by telling that the candidate in question has ‘since been reformed’ or has been ‘striving hard to help the poor people in society’ or giving some such concocted reason. Further, given the fact that people have been electing candidates with criminal cases with huge margins for a long time, knowing fully well their criminal history, the publication of the same in the media may not make much of a difference. There are a large number of factors such as caste, money, liquor, local leaders’ influence, material inducements, traditional party affiliations, promises of all kinds by parties, etc. influencing the voters at the time of elections. Amidst the charged atmosphere of elections, the criminal history of the candidate disappears into the background. As such, the Supreme Court should have taken a more proactive stand on the issue and framed concrete guidelines to be followed by the Election Commission to prevent persons with criminal cases from contesting elections.
Kosaraju Chandramouli,
Hyderabad
The Supreme Court’s directive to parties reveal the criminal antecedents of candidates may not have a telling bearing on the outcome of future elections but is, to some extent, a step in the right direction. True, this may discourage the fielding of tainted candidates and some of the present politicians may not be in the fray. But, their close aides may get a chance to contest and win elections, only to act at their behest. There is another dimension to India’s electoral scenario due to which unethical practices cannot be totally ruled out. A majority of the Indian voters have been conditioned to expect something in return for casting their votes and this has, of late, become a norm. Once leaders get elected, this modus operandi makes corruption in their functioning unavoidable. In such cases, the desirability of candidates becomes secondary, if not irrelevant when voters make their choice. Unless the voters realise the value of their votes, nothing much can be done. Self-realisation is the only way in which the system can be cleansed.
V. Lakshmanan,
Tirupur, Tamil Nadu
It may seem uncharitable to naysay a well-meant judicial nudge to make politics free of criminals, but the harsh reality is the Supreme Court’s order that political parties should publicise the criminal antecedents of candidates and justify their nomination may not cause sleepless nights to parties and tainted politicians. Public shaming can only work if it evokes opprobrium. Neither are criminal candidates apologetic about their background, nor are voters unduly bothered about it. The candidate’s caste and wealth override criminality’s stigma, if any. Caste and money amplify the criminal's intimidatory and coercive potential, imparting a cumulative boost to their electability.
It is most likely that parties will comply with the judicial order in letter perfunctorily rather than respect its spirit by refusing to nominate candidates with criminal backgrounds. Justifying the candidature of criminals will not tax the ingenuity of parties. For instance, ‘a love for public service’ can ostensibly justify the nomination of tainted candidates.
The judiciary, which seeks to crack the whip on criminality, is also part of the problem because of its inability and unwillingness to wrap up criminal cases in a time-bound manner. In the absence of sentencing, a chargesheet is not proof of culpability. The dynamics of electoral politics seem impervious to the diktats of judicial wrath and moral censure.
V.N. Mukundarajan,
Thiruvananthapuram
The Supreme Court decision has not come a day too soon. It is alarming that the percentage of MPs with criminal cases pending against them rose to 43 in 2019 from 24 in 2014. The undeniable fact is that every party is ‘fond’ of fielding candidates with criminal history as long as they bring in ‘winnability’ as an additional factor or protective cover. The Central government’s failure to enact laws to ban those involved in serious crimes from contesting elections and becoming party officials despite the September 2018 Supreme Court order is baffling and disquieting. The onus is on the electorate to be more alert and watchful and summarily reject candidates having criminal antecedents. After all, “in a democracy, people get the government they deserve and they deserve what they get”.
C.G. Kuriakose,
Kothamangalam, Kerala
