Criminalization in Politics: Supreme Court’s Ruling on Electoral Reforms and Disqualifications

The case of Public Interest Foundation & Others vs. Union of India & Another raised fundamental questions about criminalization in politics and the role of the judiciary in addressing this growing concern. The Supreme Court was asked to examine whether it could impose additional disqualifications on candidates beyond those specified under Article 102 of the Indian Constitution and the Representation of the People Act, 1951. The petitioners sought judicial intervention to curb the entry of candidates with criminal backgrounds into electoral politics, arguing that the presence of such individuals in legislatures weakened the democratic process.

Background of the Case

The petitioners highlighted the alarming increase in the number of legislators with criminal backgrounds in India. Reports from various commissions, including the Law Commission and the Vohra Committee, documented the nexus between politicians and criminals, leading to a decline in the integrity of the electoral process. Despite multiple recommendations, legislative action to address this issue remained inadequate.

Legal Questions Before the Court

• Can the Supreme Court impose additional disqualifications for contesting elections beyond what is prescribed under Article 102 and the Representation of the People Act?
• What role does the Election Commission play in ensuring the integrity of the electoral process?
• Does judicial intervention violate the principle of separation of powers?

Petitioners’ Arguments

The petitioners argued that:

• Criminalization in politics has reached a dangerous level, and urgent judicial intervention is necessary.
• Individuals with serious criminal charges should not be allowed to contest elections.
• The judiciary has a duty to ensure free and fair elections and must step in where legislative efforts have failed.
• Prohibiting candidates with criminal charges from contesting elections does not violate their fundamental rights, as the right to contest elections is a statutory right, not a fundamental right.

Respondents’ Arguments

The respondents, including the Union of India, argued that:

• The power to disqualify candidates rests exclusively with the legislature.
• The judiciary should not create new disqualifications, as this would amount to judicial legislation.
• The principle of presumption of innocence must be upheld, and individuals cannot be disqualified based solely on pending charges.
• The Election Commission should act within its constitutional limits and cannot introduce new disqualifications through executive action.

Supreme Court’s Key Observations

The Supreme Court, comprising Dipak Misra, Rohinton Fali Nariman, A.M. Khanwilkar, D.Y. Chandrachud, and Indu Malhotra, made several key observations:

1. Role of Judiciary in Electoral Reforms: “While the court cannot add new disqualifications, it has a duty to ensure that the electoral process remains free and fair. The presence of criminals in politics weakens democracy and erodes public trust in governance.”

2. Legislative Responsibility: “The power to disqualify candidates is vested in the legislature. The judiciary cannot usurp this function but can issue recommendations to the legislature to enact stricter laws.”

3. Importance of Voter Awareness: “Voters have the right to know the criminal antecedents of candidates. Political parties must disclose such information widely through print and electronic media.”

Final Judgment and Directions

The Supreme Court ruled that it could not introduce new disqualifications but issued several important directions:

• Political parties must publish the criminal records of their candidates in newspapers, electronic media, and their websites.
• The Election Commission must ensure that candidates disclose their criminal antecedents in their nomination papers.
• Voters should have easy access to information about the criminal background of candidates to make informed choices.
• The Parliament should consider enacting stricter laws to prevent individuals with serious criminal charges from contesting elections.

Impact of the Judgment

The ruling reinforced the importance of electoral integrity while respecting the separation of powers. It set a precedent for greater transparency in the election process and put the onus on political parties to act responsibly. However, the court stopped short of directly disqualifying candidates with criminal charges, leaving the decision to the legislature.

Conclusion

The judgment in this case highlights the judiciary’s cautious approach in balancing judicial activism with legislative supremacy. While acknowledging the urgent need to curb criminalization in politics, the Supreme Court refrained from overstepping its constitutional limits. Instead, it placed the responsibility on political parties, the Election Commission, and the legislature to take concrete steps to uphold democratic values.

Petitioner Name: Public Interest Foundation & Others.
Respondent Name: Union of India & Another.
Judgment By: Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar, Justice D.Y. Chandrachud, Justice Indu Malhotra.
Place Of Incident: India.
Judgment Date: 25-09-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Public Interest Foun vs Union of India & Ano Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 25-09-2018.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Fundamental Rights
See all petitions in Constitution Interpretation
See all petitions in Public Interest Litigation
See all petitions in Separation of Powers
See all petitions in Judgment by Dipak Misra
See all petitions in Judgment by Rohinton Fali Nariman
See all petitions in Judgment by A M Khanwilkar
See all petitions in Judgment by Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud
See all petitions in Judgment by Indu Malhotra
See all petitions in partially allowed
See all petitions in Modified
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments September 2018
See all petitions in 2018 judgments

See all posts in Constitutional Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Constitutional Cases Category