The Supreme Court has moved in to expose candidates with a criminal background. It has ordered political parties to publish the criminal records of their candidates for Assembly and Lok Sabha polls, along with specific reasons that made them choose those with criminal records over other candidates. Failing to do so, political parties are liable for contempt of court.
The verdict could be seen as a robust step towards decriminalisation of politics. The merit of candidates will now be in focus over mere “winnability”. However, with the kind of politics that is played out in recent times, we wonder if this move alone can cleanse a political eco-system where tainted netas rule the roost.
Politicians and political parties muddied with criminal backgrounds are no secret to India’s democratic setup. The criminal history has been part and parcel of the electoral system and is reflected in the affidavit before the election commission. There were a record 43 per cent of MPs with criminal cases against them in 2019. Half of the AAP team which recently won the Delhi elections had tainted background. The argument is no different in Goa. For example, Atanasio Monseratte, alias Babush, has a known criminal record and yet manages to bulldoze his way past the BJP candidate in the 2019 bypoll. Notwithstanding the hue and cry over his ‘shady’ background raised by Chief Minister Pramod Sawant, it is altogether a different matter that the BJP later welcomed him into the party fold with open arms and assigned him even the job of moving a congratulatory motion on CAA on the floor of the House.
The point is whether naming and shaming of tainted politicos by uploading their criminal record on websites could make a difference in a hardened political setup. Statistics suggest that the electorate has been voting for performance and approachability, overlooking criminal history. A case, in particular, was the Delhi elections.
Moreover, the court directive leaves a lot of scope for parties to manoeuvre when it comes to taking a call on a candidate. Political parties will naturally go for ‘winnability’ over merit and integrity and will try to circumvent the law by projecting performance. The only downside for parties in such a system is they will have to face an internal discord since the party has to go on record in explaining why they don’t have a better choice over tainted candidates. This is where the party’s internal management will come into play.
On the flip side, the ruling could be used by political rivals to good effect and criminal charges could be pressed at the slightest of provocation. Let us not forget the recent arrest of Porvorim MLA Rohan Khaunte over an alleged complaint of wrongful restraint and assault by BJP spokesperson. And with the slow pace of justice delivery, it could be another impediment for those seeking to break free from the shackles. In more severe cases, the law will take its course has been the common refrain from leaders seeking to cover up their trails.
Could the Supreme Court ruling be a deterrent for criminals entering politics and reign in “swachta” in politics? Could this signal the end of high and mighty politicos who have flexed muscle rather than merit? Can a candidate be debarred from contesting on the grounds of a pending criminal case against him? Who decides the seriousness of the criminal case, and what are the criteria? We have to wait and watch how the new template unfolds.
