Publish details of candidates' criminal history on website, SC tells parties
The Supreme Court has now made it mandatory for all political parties to publish all details regarding pending criminal cases against their chosen candidates, not only in local newspapers, but also on party websites and social media handles.
In Short
- Supreme Court cracks down on netas with criminal history
- Asks parties to inform EC about candidates' background
- EC can take netas to court if not duly informed
Expressing concern about the "alarming increase" in number of persons with criminal backgrounds being elected Members of Parliament and Legislative Assemblies of states, the Supreme Court on Thursday passed directions to compel political parties to "explain" why such candidates are given tickets.
The apex court has now made it mandatory for all political parties to publish all details regarding pending criminal cases against their chosen candidates, not only in local newspapers, but also on party websites and social media handles. Along with the details of pending cases, the parties will also have to publish "the reasons for such selection, as also as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates".
The details have to be published in one local vernacular language newspaper and one national newspaper.
In addition, the Supreme Court has made it clear that the "reasons" given for selection of the candidates have to be "with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere 'winnability' at the polls".
'PARTIES CIRCUMVENTING 2018 JUDGMENT'
A four-page judgment was passed on Thursday by a bench of Justice RF Nariman and S Ravindra Bhat, in a contempt of court case filed against the Chief Election Commissioner of India.
The petition claimed the ECI had failed to take any steps to ensure the implementation of a 2018 judgment of the bench, which had made it mandatory for political parties to declare and publish all criminal cases pending against their candidates.
The petitioners argued that parties were "circumventing" the 2018 judgment by publishing the details of their candidates' criminal background in "obscure and limited circulation newspapers" and "making the webpages on their websites difficult to access".
They sought contempt proceedings against the ECI for failing to ensure that information was publicised among the voters.
"It appears that over the last four general elections, there has been an alarming increase in the incidence of criminals in politics. In 2004, 24% of the Members of Parliament had criminal cases pending against them; in 2009, that went up to 30%; in 2014 to 34%; and in 2019 as many as 43% of MPs had criminal cases pending against them."
In the recently-concluded Delhi assembly elections, as many as 104 candidates declared criminal cases pending against them, with 36 candidates having cases of crimes against women, and four with hate speech charges pending against them.
That's according to data released by the Association for Democratic reforms, a watchdog NGO.
"Political parties offer no explanation as to why candidates with pending criminal cases are selected as candidates in the first place," the Supreme Court said on Thursday.
'PEOPLE WILL BE AWARE OF ALTERNATIVES'
The Supreme Court has said the details must be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or within two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever comes first. The compliance report will have to be submitted to the ECI within 72 hours of the selection of the candidate.
"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," the bench said.
Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who was one of the petitioners, said this verdict means that parties can face serious action for contempt of court if they fail to publish the information or if they cannot explain their choice of candidate.
"In addition, this will force political parties to choose candidates who do not have serious criminal charges against them, as people will be aware of alternative candidates," Ashwini Upadhyay told India Today TV.
Senior advocate Gopal Sankarnarayana, who represented some of the petitioners, told India Today TV that violation of the Supreme Court orders could leave political parties open to fines, or even to the revocation of their registration.
As well, party leaders would be open to contempt of court action, and could face fines or even jail terms.