Criminalisation of Politics in India — Causes, SC Rulings & UPSC Notes

Every Lok Sabha election produces a fresh record — and not of voter turnout. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has tracked, election after election, a rising share of MPs with criminal cases. After the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, an ADR analysis found that 251 of 543 newly elected MPs (around 46 percent) had declared criminal cases, a substantial share of them involving serious offences. Roughly one in five carried charges of rape, murder, kidnapping or crimes against women.

For UPSC aspirants, criminalisation of politics is one of the most frequently examined GS II themes. It sits at the intersection of electoral reforms, the Representation of the People Act (RPA), judicial activism, and the ethics of political representation.

The scale of the problem

• In the 17th Lok Sabha, 43 percent of elected MPs had criminal cases declared; the 18th Lok Sabha (2024) worsened the trend.
• In State Legislative Assemblies, the proportion varies but averages 30-40 percent.
• The Vohra Committee Report (1993) famously observed that there exists a nexus of criminal gangs, police, bureaucracy and politicians — and that criminal gangs operate under the aegis of political parties.
• Money and muscle power are closely linked — candidates with criminal backgrounds often have higher electoral spending and higher winning probability.

Why is the RPA unable to control criminalisation?

• Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 disqualifies persons convicted of certain offences. But conviction requires trial completion, which is rare given the backlog.
• High pendency means cases against politicians drag on for decades.
• No clear follow-up on false affidavits filed at nomination.
• The Election Commission has no power to cancel an election based on pending offences.
• Money and muscle power — donations are split and spread across cadres, defeating expenditure caps.
• Model Code of Conduct is not statutorily enforceable.
• Plea bargaining and withdrawals of cases after the politician comes to power.

Supreme Court interventions

The Supreme Court has been the driving force behind reforms. Key decisions:

Measures recommended

Courts, commissions and the EC have converged on a set of reforms:

• Strong legislation to disqualify candidates at the stage of framing of charges for serious offences.
• Exclusive special courts (Fast Track Courts) for MPs/MLAs. The Supreme Court in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v UoI (continuing mandamus) monitors this.
• Political parties to publish online details of criminal cases against candidates.
• EC to obtain and disclose information — as directed in ADR v UoI and PUCL v UoI.
• Expenditure caps strictly audited; state funding of elections as a complementary reform.

Right to Recall

A recurring reform proposal is the Right to Recall — allowing voters to remove an elected representative mid-term.

Why Right to Recall?

• Enhanced accountability — elected reps remain accountable beyond election day.
• Check on corruption and excessive campaign expenditure.
• Element of direct democracy — akin to the Rajdharma principle: ineffective governance may mean removal.
• M.N. Roy proposed a form of recall as early as 1944.
• Some states have operationalised recall at the municipal level — Madhya Pradesh, Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Haryana (2020 Bill).

Concerns

• May destabilise governments by being used as a political weapon.
• Increases election fatigue and costs.
• May become a tool of coercion against representatives from marginalised backgrounds.

Built-in safeguards

• Initial petition supported by a minimum percentage of voters.
• E-voting to decide the recall.
• No recall if the representative won by a large margin.
• Frivolous petitions barred with penalty.
• Chief Petition Officers within the Election Commission to adjudicate admissibility.

Role of media

Media is both a watchdog and an amplifier of criminalisation:

• Provides voter education through expose, debates and fact-checking.
• Info discrimination — pointing out violations and arrangements.
• Enforces compliance with MCC and other laws through scrutiny.
• Prasar Bharati — free broadcast time to recognised parties; legal awareness content in remote corners.

Relevant legal provisions governing media and elections:

Simultaneous elections — one nation, one election

The proposal to hold simultaneous Lok Sabha and State Assembly elections is a recurring reform suggestion:

• In 1952, 1957, 1962 and 1967, elections were held simultaneously in most states.
• Premature dissolutions broke the cycle from 1968 onwards.
• The Election Commission proposed simultaneous elections in 1983.
• Arguments in favour: reduced cost, continuous governance, reduced MCC interruption, reduced voter fatigue.
• Arguments against: federal concerns, mismatch of issues, practical logistics.

Updated context: The High-Level Committee on One Nation One Election under former President Ram Nath Kovind submitted its report in March 2024, recommending a phased move to simultaneous elections with constitutional amendments to Articles 83, 85, 172, 174 and 356. The Union Cabinet accepted the report in September 2024 and the Constitution (One Hundred and Twenty-Ninth Amendment) Bill, 2024 was introduced.

Election authorities

Electoral administration in India is staffed by a layered hierarchy:

• Chief Electoral Officer (CEO) — at the state level, appointed by ECI in consultation with state government.
• District Election Officer (DEO) — usually the District Magistrate.
• Returning Officer (RO) — for each constituency.
• Electoral Registration Officer (ERO) — maintains electoral rolls at constituency level.
• Presiding Officer — at polling stations, appointed by the DEO.

Election petitions under Section 80 RPA go to the High Court; appeals lie only to the Supreme Court under Section 116A.

Latest developments (2024-26)

• Electoral bonds scheme struck down (Feb 2024) — SBI data published; substantial anonymity gone.
• ADR's 2024 election analysis confirmed worsening criminalisation trend.
• One Nation One Election Bill 2024 introduced.
• cVIGIL app used extensively in 2024 elections.
• Updated context: A continuing mandamus case in the Supreme Court (Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay) is pushing for lifetime ban on convicted politicians (currently 6-year disqualification post-sentence). The case remains sub judice.

UPSC relevance

For Prelims, remember:

• Vohra Committee Report (1993) — first official document naming the criminal-political nexus.
• Section 8 RPA — disqualifications on conviction.
• Lily Thomas (2013) — immediate disqualification of sitting MPs/MLAs.
• Public Interest Foundation (2018) — media publicity of criminal antecedents.
• NOTA introduced via PUCL v UoI (2013).

For Mains (GS II), typical framings:

• Examine the causes of criminalisation of politics and suggest reforms.
• Discuss the role of the Supreme Court in curbing criminalisation of politics.
• Is the Right to Recall a viable tool for accountability? Examine.

Good answers use data (ADR reports), committee reports (Vohra, Law Commission 244th), SC judgments and EC initiatives (cVIGIL) to build a layered argument. For essays, criminalisation of politics connects to democracy's internal deficits, representation and rule of law — a staple UPSC theme.

PDF