Can disqualification only end the criminalization of politics?

For fourteen days ago, a bank of the Supreme Court of fear gave the fear that all thinkers shared the citizens about the criminalization of our politics. There is no doubt that crimes and politics come together too often in our public life. ADR, an organization of civil society that creates the data of the electoral commission, reports that 46% of the members of the Lok Sabha locomotive have criminal proceedings against them and 31% of members with serious charges such as rape, murder, attempted murder, kidnapping, etc.

On behalf of the Lok Satta movement, I started a campaign against the criminalization of politics in 1999 when we unveiled the public after thorough and independent examination of the public. Since then, the criminalization has continued uncontrollably despite a flood of decisions by the Supreme Court, the public pressure and examination of the media.

Section 8 of the 1951 Representation Act provides for the disqualification of candidates who convicted of defined crimes or suffer a prison sentence of two years or more due to a crime. But the weaknesses of our criminal justice system enable many criminals to be convicted for years and decades. The efforts to accelerate the exams in cases with chosen politicians also had no fruits. In view of this experience, we have to carefully check how criminalization can be restricted.

The disqualification of convicted criminals is certainly necessary. So far, however, the provisions of the disqualification have only very low effects. The disqualification of the lifetime of convicted criminals is a calling, and it is such a request that lies in front of the bank of the Supreme Court. However, we have to be careful if we use disqualification as an instrument to combat our democratic deficit. A false conviction or excessive punishment, which is awarded in a relatively minor case, can have seriously weakening consequences for our politics. For example, we take Mr. Rahul Gandhi's conviction and conviction by a court in a case of criminal defamation for two years. If the disqualification, especially for life, follows such beliefs, our political process would derail, which undermines the legitimacy of democracy.

Let us remember that many authoritarian nations use disqualification as an instrument for derailing democracy – Russia, Belarus, Pakistan, Turkey, Myanmar, Bangladesh etc. The disqualification should be used in extreme cases. For this reason, our provisional parliament, which included members of the constituent assembly, ensured the removal or reduction of the disqualification period. Section 11 of the law states: “The election commission can remove any disqualification as part of this chapter for reasons of award or reduce the disqualification period.” The founding members of our republic showed great wisdom when it comes to realizing that the disqualification occasionally undermined our democracy and gave the election commission to eliminate disqualifications.

In any case, disqualification or rejection of a seat to a person with a criminal register or serious complaints against him cannot really fulfill the intended purpose. Your deputies can fill the vacancies and we will only have achieved a Pyrrhical victory. Let's take the constituency of Kaiserganj Lok Sabha in Uttar Pradesh. When Mr. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh refused to the BJP, his son, Mr. Karan Bhushan Singh, became a party candidate, and he won the elections in Lok Sabha in 2024, himself as the party against the headwind in the state.

It doesn't mean that we are helpless and desperately wrestle ourselves. We have to go to the basic causes of criminalization and address them to improve democracy. Four questions must be answered in terms of criminalization. From the space of the room I briefly ski the case for reforms and the details can be examined in later columns.

First, those who consider the polite society as criminals to be viewed by most locals as heroes and rescuers. Why? In view of our failure to deliver fast, effective, accessible and affordable justice, there is a clear demand for “criminals”! The local Robin Hoods, who deliver rough and prepared justice at a price, often with brutal methods, are regarded as non -declared judges!

Second, why does a successful criminal enter politics and show the media and public exam? In a system in which the examination of crime is under political control, it is a great feeling for a criminal who joins politics. Once a politician with a big party, the police, which he should fear, will fear him instead and take orders from him! How could you better protect your buddies and destroy your opponents and competitors?

Third, why do large parties nominate those with serious criminal records as candidates? Every criminal politician described himself as the leader of a box group or community. Criminals combine the money power of crime, organization and muscle power, which are the characteristics of crime and the management of the box. Parties who absolutely want to win the border vote in our electoral system feel forced to nominate candidates with these attributes, and they often gain the choice.

After all, why people vote for well -known criminals? In a wooden, apathetic, non -reacting and dysfunctional system with a high degree of centralization, most normal citizens cannot do anything. Against this background, a legislator with a criminal history that causes fear that gives lower bureaucracy at least some services.

If we are serious if we are serious about ending criminalization and improving democracy, we have to answer all of these four questions and reform the system. There are no quick corrections.

The author is the founder of the Lok Satta Movement and the Foundation for Democratic Reforms. E -Mail: drjploksatta@gmail.com / Twitter@jp_loksatta