While political parties continue to remain agnostic about disclosing the candidates’ criminal antecedents during the election process, the Association for Democratic Reforms has urged the Election Commission of India to recognise the deleterious effects of such non-compliance by political parties, despite clear directions from the Supreme Court.
—
POLITICAL parties who do not comply with the Supreme Court and Election Commission of India’s (ECI) directions on the publication of details on criminal antecedents of candidates in letter and spirit should be deregistered and derecognised, electoral reforms group Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has suggested in a letter to the ECI.
In its analysis, the ADR claims to have found multiple instances of political parties not having a functional website to publish details of candidates, or details not being uploaded on the website or social media accounts or being uploaded in the wrong format.
Even when uploaded, the selection of candidates with a criminal background was found to have been justified with reasons such as chances of winning, popularity of a person, offences not being grave in nature, or claims about cases having been filed with political motivations, the ADR has said.
Ruling on a contempt petition in February 2021, the Supreme Court had warned political parties against justifying the selection of a candidate facing criminal charges on the basis of ‘winnability’.
Also read: What explains the increasing entry of criminals and wealthy candidates into politics?
“The current predicament requires immediate intervention by this commission,” the ECI has been told. In its view, Indian democracy is at a phase where “every manoeuvre adopted by the judiciary and the Election Commission to refine the political class seems to be failing.”
The letter dated June 19, 2023, bears the signatures of ADR head major general (retired) Anil Verma and founding members Prof. Trilochan Sastry and Prof. Jagdeep Chhokar.
“We are sanguine that the Election Commission will take firm and swift action in this regard and uphold the faith of the public in the free and fair elections and the rule of law,” the association has submitted.
Repeated reminders
Despite directions issued by the Supreme Court in September 2018 and February 2020 regarding mandatory disclosure of criminal antecedents, political parties failed to follow them in the assembly elections held between 2021 and now, the ADR has claimed.
“[P]olitical parties had purposely fielded tainted candidates with a criminal background and overlooked the critical credentials necessitated in a participatory democracy such as merit, integrity, honesty, qualifications and achievements.”
Instances of the non-existence of a functional website have been flagged by the association, in addition to those relating to the non-publication of all or part of information.
While giving reasons for fielding candidates facing criminal cases, political parties were found to have given the same “unfounded and baseless” reason for multiple candidates, such as winnability and claims of charges not being grave in nature or political vendetta, it has been submitted.
Also read: Supreme Court to hear petition challenging the appointment of Arun Goel as election commissioner
On a contempt petition, the Supreme Court in February 2020 held that the reason for the selection of a candidate shall be with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere ‘winnability’ at the polls.
The court, in Rambabu Singh Thakur versus Sunil Arora And Others (2020), also ruled that the information on criminal antecedents shall be published in at least one local vernacular newspaper and at least one national newspaper, in addition to the official social media accounts of the political party.
The court laid down a deadline of 48 hours for publishing such information and directed political parties to submit a compliance report within 72 hours of the selection of such a candidate.
Non-compliance by a party is to be brought to the notice of the Supreme Court by the ECI, the division Bench had ruled.
“The nation continues to wait and is losing patience. Cleansing the polluted stream of politics is obviously not one of the immediate pressing concerns of the legislative branch of government,” the Supreme Court had observed in response to another contempt petition in August 2021.
Nine political parties were held guilty of contempt for non-compliance with the court’s February 2020 order, including the Bharatiya Janata Party, the Indian National Congress, the Communist Party of India (Marxist), and the Nationalist Congress Party. Fines were imposed on the majority of the nine parties held in contempt.
The above contempt petition was filed in the aftermath of non-compliance with the court’s earlier directions in Public Interest Foundation versus Union of India (2018) through which the court directed the publishing of information on criminal antecedents on the website of the political party under whose banner a candidate was slated to contest elections.
In addition to the above, political parties and candidates with criminal antecedents were obligated to publish the declaration at least on three different dates from the date following the last date of withdrawal of candidatures and up to two days before the date of the poll.
Deregister and derecognise
Besides going against directions of the Supreme Court and the pursuant directions by the ECI, non-compliance by political parties “goes against the spirit of democracy and constitutional propriety”, the ADR has said.
In the above background, the ADR has sought strict action against defaulting political parties which contested the 2023 assembly elections held in Tripura, Meghalaya, Nagaland, and Karnataka, 2022 assembly elections held in Gujarat, Himachal Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Goa, Manipur and the Punjab and 2021 assembly elections held in the states of West Bengal, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Assam, and the Union territory of Puducherry.
As per the association, democracy under the Indian Constitution indicates a participatory democracy with a level-playing field, and therefore, “repeatedly selecting tainted candidates and neglecting the credible, honest and deserving candidates” goes against such Constitutional ethos.
“In the absence of required compliance, the electorate are deprived of their basic right to make an informed choice,” the association asserts.
“The commission should consider imposing a fine for the said violation”, the ADR has suggested to the ECI.
The letter notes that para 16A of the Election Symbols (Reservation and Allotment) Order, 1968 empowers the ECI to either withdraw or suspend the recognition of a political party if it fails to carry out “the lawful directions and instructions given by the commission”, among other things.
The association has asked the ECI to issue show cause notices to parties who fail to follow the directions, and, if found in contempt, deregister or derecognise those political parties.
Deregistration implies the revocation of the name of a political party from the rolls of the ECI. Meanwhile, derecognition implies the withdrawal of national or state party status granted by the ECI based on the fulfilment of certain criteria.
The ECI has been suggested to create a list of defaulting parties and submit this list to the Supreme Court after each election.
