Date: 02/11/2022

Relevance: GS-2: Representation of People’s Act

Key Phrases: Sections 153a, Representation of People Act 1951, Indian Penal Code, suo motu, Article 327, Lily Thomas vs Union of India 2013, Public Interest Foundation and Ors. vs Union of India 2014, Rambabu Singh Thakur v Sunil Arora 2020.

Context:

• Recently an MLA was disqualified from membership of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly after his conviction in a 2019 hate speech case.
• He was convicted under Sections 153a (promoting enmity between two groups), 505 (statement conducing to public mischief) of the Indian Penal Code and Section 125 of the Representation of People Act 1951.

Why was member disqualified?

• The Representation of the People Act says that anyone sentenced to imprisonment of two years or more shall be disqualified "from the date of such conviction" and remain disqualified for another six years after serving time in jail.
• The Speaker can start the disqualification proceedings either suo motu or after receiving an application on this.

Representation of the People Act, 1951

• The Representation of the People Act, 1951 is an act of Parliament of India to provide for the conduct of election of the Houses of Parliament and to the House or Houses of the Legislature of each State,
• Apart from other provisions it deals with
  • the qualifications and disqualifications for membership of these houses,
  • the corrupt practices and other offences at or in connection with such elections and the decision of doubts and disputes arising out of or in connection with such elections.
• It was introduced in Parliament by law minister Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
• The Act was enacted by the provisional parliament under Article 327 of Indian Constitution, before the first general election.

Offences pertaining to elections defined in the RPA 1951

• Promoting hatred and enmity.
• Breach of official duty and providing support to any candidate.
• Booth capturing and removing ballot papers.
• Engaging in the sale of liquor within 2 days before the conclusion of polling.
• Announcing public meetings within 48 hours before voting and also causing disturbances.

Supreme Court Rulings and RPA:

• Lily Thomas vs Union of India 2013
  • The Supreme court of India, in its judgement in 2013 while disposing the Lily Thomas vs Union of India (later in Lok Prahari vs UoI,2018 also) ruled that any MP, MLA, or MLC who is convicted of a crime and sentenced to a minimum of two years in jail loses their membership in the house immediately.
  • In this case the Supreme Court declared Section 8(4) of the Representation of the People Act 1951 invalid, which gave convicted legislators three months to appeal to a higher court and gain a stay on their conviction and sentence.
• Other Supreme Court Judgments to decriminalize Politics
  • Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) vs. Union of India in 2002: Mandated the disclosure of information relating to criminal antecedents, educational qualification, and personal assets of a candidate contesting elections.
  • Public Interest Foundation and Ors. vs Union of India 2014: The Supreme Court directed that trials of sitting MPs and MLAs be completed within a year of charges being filed against them.
  • Rambabu Singh Thakur v Sunil Arora 2020: All candidates, both state and federal, to make their criminal records public if they wish to run for office.

Reasons for the criminalisation of politics:

1. Vote Bank:
   • Individuals and political parties do astronomical expenditure for buying the votes and for other illegitimate purposes.
   • The politician’s link with the constituency gives rise to political crime.
2. Corruption:
   • Corruption is also an important factor in the criminalisation of politics.
   • The corrupted political member uses his powers for winning the elections not in a fair manner.
3. Lack of Governance:
   • The origin of the problem of the criminalisation of politics is mainly the country’s poor governance capacity.
   • On one hand, excessive procedures are used in India to allow the bureaucracy to insert into the ordinary life of people while on the other hand, it appears that it is woefully understaffed to perform its most crucial functions.

Way Forward:

• The criminalization of politics and corruption hit the roots of democracy. There should be wide publicity of the candidates with criminal records, who are contesting in an election and the political parties that give them support.
• There is a need to bring greater transparency in the campaign financing of political parties. The political parties must be brought under the Right to Information Act to improve their transparency and accountability.
• The Parliament should enact a law dealing with increased criminalization of politics. Further, separate courts dealing with sitting legislators would be crucial for the decriminalization of politics.
• The suggestions of Law Commission, Supreme Court and Election Commission need to be implemented for cleansing the Parliament and state legislatures from people with a criminal background.

Conclusion:

• The courts have always lauded the objective of weeding out criminal elements from the electoral process, but have not examined whether the available provisions can claim to achieve this aim.
• The apex court must re-examine the issue in the totality of its circumstances.

Sources: Indian Express

Mains Question:

Q. What do you understand by criminalization of politics? Discuss reasons behind it. (Word 250).