Criminalisation of Politics & Contempt of Issued Directions

RECENT JUDGMENT ON CRIMINALISATION OF POLITICS

Ram Babu Singh Thakur vs. Sunil Arora & Ors. [W.P. (C) 536 of 2011] in a judgment dated February 13, 2020.

DATELINE

2018: In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench had unanimously held that all candidates will have to declare their criminal antecedents to the EC before contesting polls and called for wider publicity, through print and electronic media about antecedents of candidates.

NEW DEVELOPMENTS

February 2020: The Supreme Court has asked all the political parties to give details of candidates with a criminal background on their websites, and give reasons for handing out tickets to them for elections. The order came on a contempt plea, which has raised the issue of criminalisation of politics and claimed that the directions given by the apex court in its September 2018 verdict relating to disclosure of criminal antecedents by-poll candidates were not being followed. Here are the highlights of the Ram Babu Singh Thakur (supra) judgement given by the bench of justices Rohinton Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat:

“116.1. 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.

116.2. It shall state, in bold letters, with regard to the criminal cases pending against the candidate.

116.3. 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.

116.4. The political party concerned shall be obligated to put up on its website the aforesaid information pertaining to candidates having criminal antecedents.

116.5. 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.”

The court also observed that they have also noted that the political parties offer no explanation as to why candidates with pending criminal cases are selected as candidates in the first place. We, therefore, issue the following directions in the exercise of our constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India:

1) It shall be mandatory for political parties [at the Central and State election level to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases (including the nature of the offences, and relevant particulars such as whether charges have been framed, the concerned Court, the case number etc.) who have been selected as candidates, along with the reasons for such selection, as also as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates.

2) The reasons as to selection shall be with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere “winnability” at the polls.

3) This information shall also be published in:

(a) One local vernacular newspaper and one national newspaper;

(b) On the official social media platforms of the political party, including Facebook & Twitter.

4) These details shall be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or not less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.

5) The political party concerned shall then submit a report of compliance with these directions with the Election Commission within 72 hours of the selection of the said candidate.

6) If a political party fails to submit such compliance report with the Election Commission, the Election Commission shall bring such non-compliance by the political party concerned to the notice of the Supreme Court as being in contempt of this Court’s orders/directions.

Reference: Image curtsey-iastopper.com