The Supreme Court’s refusal to bar politicians who have been chargesheeted in criminal cases from contesting elections, and its position that Parliament can legislate to that effect, can be interpreted in two ways. The first is that the apex court has lost an opportunity to clean up the political system. The second is that it has offered a chance to parliamentarians to refurbish their image by initiating the process.
Those who believe the court should have done more than just deliver homilies, have the following arguments to offer — and these have merit. The first is that it is futile to expect our elected representative to bring in a law that will harm their interests. Every political party, in varying degrees, has tainted leaders who face serious criminal cases and are yet members of Parliament or Legislative Assemblies. How can the public then expect these very Members of Parliament or Assemblies to being in a law that shuts the door on their future?
Then there is the issue of consensus. Assuming, for argument’s sake, there is a political party that shows courage to demand such a legislation. But in the absence of the required numbers, that party’s effort will go in vain. Besides, the party will be accused of grandstanding in the knowledge that its voice was more for public consumption than for bringing about real change. Given the fractious nature of our elected forums, there exists only a slim possibility of such a law.
There is also the question of pragmatism. Leaders often face criminal charges that have been foisted on them for political reasons. Should they be disqualified from contesting elections in view of the vested nature of the complaints and the resultant cases? But a way out had been floated to tackle the problem. There were suggestions that only those politicians against whom the courts have framed charges which, if proved, could entail a prison term of at least two years, should be debarred. As the law presently stands, only those leaders who have been convicted with a jail term of at least two years, lose their right to contest polls.
Amendments would have to be made to the Representation of the People Act to tighten the noose around tainted politicians, and it is naive to believe that netas are willing to commit suicide. Which is why the petitioner who had approached the Supreme Court, had demanded the court’s intervention. The apex court Bench’s stand that Parliament is the forum for laws to be framed, is well taken. But hasn’t the apex court even struck down laws made by Parliament? it did that with the judicial accountability Act, for instance. What if Parliament refuses to oblige in this instance? Will the court intervene to provide relief? After all, it’s certainly not in the constitutional scheme of things for politicians facing serious criminal charges, to be sitting in Parliament and Assemblies and playing the role of law-makers.
The court has given certain directions, which it believes will enhance awareness among voters regarding the criminality of leaders seeking votes. It has asked those wishing to contest, to provide complete details of the criminal cases they face, to their respective political parties. Such details must also be advertised in the media, and placed on websites, by the parties and the Election Commission of India. This will lead to nothing in reality. Local voters are generally fully aware of the background of contesting individuals, including the criminal cases they are embroiled in. We have seen that such a taint has not affected the winnability of these candidates. On the contrary, it has often assisted in their victory.The issue is not of creating awareness but of preventing such candidates from contesting. The idea of ‘naming and shaming’ contestants facing criminal cases is a non-starter, because these are not the types that can be shamed; and, being named actually works in their favour as it results in free publicity.
There is no doubt that the Supreme Court has provided an opportunity to our elected leaders to polish their image. Will the main opposition party, which is currently busy screaming scams, take the lead to demand a legislation that deals with an issue of a far more serious nature — those accused of murder, rape, kidnapping, physical intimidation etc, and not just financial impropriety? Can the ruling Modi-led NDA Government at the Centre summon the courage to move a legislation in the months to come, well before the 2019 Lok Sabha election is announced? It was determined enough to tackle instant triple divorce in the Muslim community, bringing in an Ordinance when it failed to get the Rajya Sabha — where it doesn’t have the numbers — to pass a relevant Bill. It can demonstrate a similar resolve in the tainted netas’ case too.
Governments over the years have taken measures to reform the electoral system, but these steps have been piecemeal in nature. By any yardstick, barring candidates against whom courts have framed charges of a serious criminal nature, from contesting elections, would be a most outstanding reform. The question is: Will somebody bell the cat?
Discussion about this post