Criminalisation of Politics in India : The 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill and it's repercussions

Posted by on


Context

On August 20, 2025, the Union Home and Cooperation Minister Shri Amit Shah introduced the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025, along with related bills, in Parliament. The 130th Amendment Bill proposes changes to Articles 75 and 164 of the Constitution, empowering the President and Governors respectively to remove the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, or other Ministers of the Union and States if they are detained or remain under arrest for 30 continuous days on charges punishable with imprisonment of 5 years or more.

This amendment aims to curb the deleterious practice of political leaders “ruling from jail,” ensuring that individuals with serious criminal charges cannot continue to hold executive office while incarcerated. The bill has ignited debate, with the government highlighting its necessity for clean governance and opposition parties raising concerns about potential misuse.

The bill is part of a broader legislative push to tackle criminalisation of politics, improve transparency, and restore public faith in democratic institutions.

Introduction

The issue of criminalisation of politics is deeply rooted in India's democratic processes and continues to rise alarmingly. The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) reports that 46% of MPs elected to the 2024 Lok Sabha face declared criminal charges, a significant increase from 43% in 2019, and more than double the 23% in 2004. Further, 31% of these candidates face serious criminal charges, including heinous crimes such as murder, rape, and kidnapping, signifying a worrying entrenchment of criminal elements in elected offices.

Specific examples include MPs charged with multiple cases yet winning elections due to vast financial resources and local influence. These trends weaken democratic governance by promoting impunity, cultivating corruption, and eroding faith in electoral processes and institutions.

Historical Context

  • Post-Independence Period (1947-1970s):
    Early Indian politics was dominated by leaders active in the freedom movement, fostering democratic ideals. Criminal participation was minimal due to widespread respect for law and order. The political landscape, guided by leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru and Sardar Patel, emphasized nation-building and institutional integrity.

  • Emergence of Criminal Elements (1970s-1980s):
    The decline of the Congress Party’s dominance and the rise of regional political groupings coincided with increased involvement of muscle power in elections. Politicians with power bases in local strongmen became influential, particularly in politically complex states like Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. An illustrative figure is Akhilesh Singh from Bihar, accused of multiple criminal cases but sustained by caste-based support.

  • 1990s and Crisis of Governance:
    The 1990s marked a robust rise of caste-based politics and organized crime-politics nexus, with candidates leveraging identity politics and coercion. Bihar’s Mohammad Shahabuddin, repeatedly elected despite numerous criminal charges, epitomizes this period. This era also saw the increasing use of redistricting and electoral strategies favoring candidates with substantial money and muscle power.

  • 2000s to Present:
    Despite judicial activism and electoral reforms, criminalisation has not only persisted but intensified. The Myneta report of 2024 highlights crorepati MPs with criminal antecedents dominating Parliament. The nexus between business interests, crime, and politics has blurred boundaries further, with major scams exposing systemic governance failures.

Causes of Criminalisation

  1. Muscle and Money Power:
    Individuals possessing armed groups and vast financial resources dominate electoral politics by using coercion and distributing illicit funds. The 2024 Lok Sabha data shows criminal candidates won 15.3% of seats, while clean candidates only won 4.4%, highlighting disproportionate success tied to muscle power. Notorious cases include the Laloo Prasad Yadav family in Bihar, who relied on both caste loyalty and coercion.

  2. Lack of Internal Democracy within Political Parties:
    Parties often select candidates based on “winnability” metrics irrespective of ethics. For instance, in 2024, BJP and Congress fielded 39% and 49% candidates respectively with declared criminal cases. Parties are frequently accused of folding to local ‘strongman’ demands, ignoring grassroots preferences for clean leaders.

  3. Judicial Delays and Low Conviction Rates:
    India’s legal process is notoriously slow, particularly in trials of legislators and politicians. According to the 2019 National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), only around 6% of politicians facing charges are convicted, encouraging repeated contestation and protection from accountability.

  4. Vote Bank Politicking:
    Political candidates often consolidate caste, religious, or community votes, sometimes through coercion. Criminal-politicians like Mohammad Shahabuddin in Bihar leveraged caste loyalties to maintain electoral strongholds despite criminal allegations.

  5. Political-Administrative Nexus:
    Politicians often collude with local bureaucrats and police to evade investigation or punishment. This nexus undermines effective law enforcement and judicial independence. For example, investigations into Godhra riots in Gujarat were hampered by political interference.

  6. Voter Behaviour and Misinformation:
    Due to socio-economic factors like poverty and illiteracy, voters may prioritize short-term benefits, caste considerations, or local influence over candidate integrity.

  7. Escalation in Election Costs:
    The cost of contesting elections has escalated tremendously, incentivizing reliance on illicit money, which is often linked to criminal networks.

  8. Multiparty System Fragmentation:
    The proliferation of political parties intensifies competition, prompting parties to cut corners in candidate selection, opting for strongmen with criminal records to ensure electorally competitive advantage.

Forms and Manifestations

  • Candidates with Criminal Records:
    The 2024 elections saw 31% of MPs with serious criminal charges, with offenses ranging from murder (IPC 302), kidnapping (IPC 363), to rape (IPC 376). Many candidates face multiple charges yet secure their seats due to intimidation and financial muscle.

  • Electoral Violence and Intimidation:
    Candidates and their supporters often engage in violence during campaigns or at polling booths to manipulate results. The Bihar 2020 Assembly elections witnessed multiple reports of booth capturing and voter intimidation.

  • Manipulation of Administration and Law Enforcement:
    Once in office, criminal legislators tend to exploit political influence to interfere with investigations and manipulate local police. The Muzaffarnagar riots case included allegations of politicians using administration to hinder justice.

  • Corruption Leading to Policy Capture:
    Criminal politicians tend to distort policy formulation for personal or group benefits, leading to scams like the 2G Spectrum Scam (₹1.76 lakh crore loss). They lyse their influence to prevent reforms threatening vested interests.

  • Misuse of Public Resources:
    Using state machinery and funds for personal or electoral benefits, e.g., state contract allocations favoring relatives of criminals.

  • Dominance in Local Governments:
    Use of criminal gangs to control panchayat elections and municipalities remains widespread, especially in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar.

Impact on Democracy and Governance

  • Rule of Law Erosion:
    Criminal elements in governance undermine the independence of judiciary and law enforcement agencies, weakening institutional frameworks.

  • Public Trust Loss:
    With nearly half the Parliament having charges against members, voter confidence deteriorates. 67% of survey respondents (CSDS 2023) expressed skepticism about politicians’ integrity.

  • Policy Corruption and Inefficiencies:
    Such politicians capture decision-making, leading to resource misallocation and corruption scandals undermining socio-economic development.

  • Governance Breakdown:
    Welfare delivery is impaired due to corruption and patronage. For instance, many social security schemes suffer from leakages in areas led by criminal-politicians.

  • Political Violence:
    Electoral violence escalates due to criminal tactics, resulting in loss of lives and property across several states.

  • Weakening of Legislative Function:
    Presence of accused criminals in Parliament leads to diluted debate quality and accountability.

  • Impunity Cycle:
    Politicians facing charges use office to entrench themselves, discouraging whistleblowers and witnesses.

Legal and Constitutional Framework

  • Article 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e):
    Disqualify a member of Parliament or State Legislature if convicted for two years or more imprisonment.

  • Representation of the People Act, 1951:
    Sections 8 and 8A specify disqualification periods varying with the nature of offenses.

  • Affidavit Requirement:
    Since a 2002 Supreme Court ruling, candidates must declare any pending criminal cases.

  • Supreme Court Judgments:
    Clarify disqualification criteria and affirm disclosure norms.

  • Amendment Provisions in the 130th Bill:
    Amends Articles 75 and 164 to empower removal of PM and CM by President/Governor if detained 30 continuous days.

Landmark Judicial Interventions

  • ADR vs Union of India (2002):
    Mandated affidavit disclosures of criminal and financial records.

  • Lily Thomas Case (2013):
    Mandated immediate disqualification of legislators on conviction, removing earlier immunity grace period.

  • Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India (2018):
    Directed publication of criminal records to enhance voter information.

  • Ramesh Dalal vs UoI (2005):
    Upheld disqualification for imprisonment exceeding two years.

  • Sampath Kumar vs UoI (2005):
    Reinforced affidavit requirements ensuring transparency.

  • Gangaram vs UoI (2005):
    Disqualification applies during remission periods of sentences.

Solutions: Recommendations by Committees and Commissions

  • Law Commission (244th Report, 2014):
    Suggested disqualification after charges framed for offenses punishable by 5+ years, recommended special courts.

  • Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2nd ARC):
    Recommended political party accountability and barring of serious criminal candidates.

  • National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (NCRWC):
    Proposed amendments to disqualify candidates facing charges and introduce fast-track courts.

  • Vohra Committee (1993):
    Highlighted the nexus between politicians and criminals; recommended enhanced law enforcement powers.

  • Goswami Committee:
    Urged political party reforms including candidate selection protocols avoiding criminals.

Role of Political Parties and Election Commission

  • Political Parties:
    Continue to field large numbers of candidates with pending charges to maximize electoral success. Example: In 2024, BJP fielded 39%, Congress 49% candidates with criminal antecedents. Parties rarely penalize such members or exclude them, reflecting tolerance for criminalisation.

  • Election Commission (EC):
    Instituted mandatory disclosure affidavits, conducts voter awareness (SVEEP campaigns), imposes fines for code violations; however, lacks authority to debar candidates at nomination stage and enforcement remains inconsistent.

Efforts by Government Agencies to Curb Criminalisation

  1. TN Seshan’s Tenure:
    1990s EC Chief TN Seshan aggressively enforced Model Code of Conduct, promoting free and fair elections, reducing malpractice.

  2. Special Courts (2017):
    Establishment of 12 fast-track courts dedicated to cases involving MPs/MLAs to expedite trials.

  3. Affidavit Filing System:
    Mandated unanimous disclosure of criminal, financial, and educational info by candidates, improving transparency.

  4. Election Commission Voter Awareness:
    SVEEP campaigns educate voters on candidate backgrounds and election importance.

  5. Enforcement Measures:
    EC levies fines, issues warnings to parties nominating candidates with fraudulent affidavits.

  6. MyNeta Portal:
    Accessible database of candidates’ criminal and financial backgrounds.

  7. Judicial Oversight on Trial Speed:
    Supreme Court’s monitoring of special courts to ensure expediency.

  8. Electoral Bonds and Funding Transparency:
    Mechanism aimed at reducing illicit electoral funding though challenges persist.

Challenges to Reforms

  • Judicial Backlog:
    Criminal trials involving politicians regularly suffer extensive delays beyond electoral cycles, enabling repeated contestation.

  • Political Reluctance:
    Parties hesitant to replace vote-winning ‘strongmen’ candidates, unwilling to embrace reform.

  • Electorate Behavior:
    Caste, religion, and monetary incentives often outweigh candidate integrity in voter choices.

  • Enforcement Weakness:
    Law enforcement agencies frequently under political pressure undermining impartiality.

  • Legal Ambiguities:
    Loopholes in prosecution and disqualification laws exploited by savvy politicians.

Statistical Overview and Trends

  • MPs with Criminal Cases:
    23% (2004), 30% (2009), 34% (2014), 43% (2019), 46% (2024).

  • MPs with Serious Cases:
    14% (2009), 21% (2014), 29% (2019), 31% (2024).

  • Convicted MPs (2024): 27 MPs currently in Lok Sabha with convictions.

  • State Hotspots: Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra register highest rates.

  • Crorepati MPs: 93% in 2024, indicating criminalisation's link with rising money power.

Role of Media, Civil Society and Voter Awareness

Media

  • Investigative efforts like the Tehelka sting (2005) exposed corruption linked to politicians.

  • Platforms like MyNeta provide voters direct access to candidate backgrounds.

  • Social media enhances dissemination of information.

  • Regional media expose grassroots criminal-politician nexus (e.g., UP, Bihar).

  • Media debates push policymakers for reforms.

Civil Society

  • ADR and National Election Watch conduct audits, submit RTIs, and advocate reforms.

  • PILs by NGOs led to landmark court rulings mandating affidavit disclosures.

  • Voter education programs mobilize informed voting.

  • Civil society monitors party promises and implements accountability initiatives.

  • Partnerships with EC to broaden transparency and voter participation.

Voter Awareness

  • SVEEP campaigns emphasize candidate disclosure importance.

  • Digital access allows increased informed decision-making.

  • Persistent barriers: socioeconomic factors, caste loyalties, misinformation.

  • Turnout improvements in regions with active education drives.

  • Growing demand for clean politics among youth voters noted in surveys.

Recommendations and Reforms

  • Fast-track judicial mechanisms: Expand special courts with defined trial durations.

  • Legal reforms: Disqualify candidates immediately on framing of serious charges.

  • Political party accountability: Deregistration and fines for parties repeatedly nominating criminals.

  • State funding of elections: To reduce dependence on illicit money.

  • Transparency in campaign finance: Mandatory real-time expenditure disclosures.

  • Internal democracy in parties: Merit-based candidate promotion.

  • Enhanced voter education: Statewide consistent programs integrating digital tools.

  • Technological innovation: AI-based monitoring of campaign finance and candidate data.

Comparative International Perspectives

  • United States:
    Stringent candidate background checks and financial disclosures enforced by FEC prevent serious criminals from contesting.

  • Brazil:
    Bans on candidates with criminal convictions; persistent corruption challenges; periodic reforms improving accountability.

  • United Kingdom:
    Independent Electoral Commission monitors campaign finance and candidate qualifications strictly.

  • South Africa:
    Independent Electoral Commission bars serious criminals, ensuring clean electoral rolls.

  • India can adopt rigorous transparency, judicial oversight, and democratic party reforms inspired by these models.

Way Forward

  1. Legislative amendments to disqualify candidates upon framing of serious charges with a definition of threshold offenses.

  2. Creation of additional special courts for priority trials of politician-related criminal cases.

  3. Empowering Election Commission with authority to reject nominations with serious criminal antecedents pre-election.

  4. Encouraging political parties to reform internal democratic practices and prioritize integrity.

  5. Implementing state election funding mechanisms to reduce dependence on illicit electoral funds.

  6. Institutionalizing nationwide voter education emphasizing the importance of candidate integrity.

  7. Mandating detailed and audited real-time campaign finance disclosures.

  8. Utilizing technology platforms to monitor political funding and candidate records effectively.

Conclusion

The criminalisation of politics fundamentally threatens Indian democracy’s legitimacy and its governance institutions. Despite laudable judicial efforts and reform initiatives, the problem persists due to systemic inertia, political expediency, voter pressures, and weak enforcement. Addressing it requires a holistic, multi-stakeholder effort encompassing legislative reforms, judicial efficiency, political accountability, civil society vigilance, media activism, and informed citizenry participation. Only sustained, integrated action can ensure clean and credible democratic processes that foster good governance and equitable development.

Exact UPSC Questions on Criminalisation of Politics

Prelims

  • Question (2021):
    Consider the following statements:

  1. In India, candidates contesting elections are required to submit affidavits declaring their criminal antecedents.

  2. The Supreme Court of India has barred people with pending criminal cases from contesting elections.

  3. Under the Representation of the People Act, persons convicted of certain offenses are disqualified from contesting elections.
    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
    (a) 1 only
    (b) 1 and 3 only
    (c) 2 and 3 only
    (d) 1, 2 and 3
    Answer: (b) 1 and 3 only
    Explanation: Candidates must disclose criminal antecedents; only convicted persons are disqualified; SC has not barred those with pending cases.

Mains

  • Question (2022):
    “Criminalisation of politics in India is a threat to good governance and democracy.” Elaborate with examples and suggest measures to curb it.

  • Question (2020):
    Discuss causes of criminalisation of politics and analyse its impact on democracy. Suggest reforms to address the issue.

  • Question (2019):
    Examine the role of judiciary and Election Commission in curbing criminalisation of politics.



Comments

Post a Comment