Decriminalization Of Indian Politics: 13 Key Observations Made By Supreme Court Today

The Supreme Court delivered a significant judgment today emphasizing the need to decriminalize Indian politics. The following are key observations made by the bench of Justices RF Nariman and BR Gavai in its judgment today:Candidates with criminal antecedents should not be permitted to be the law-makers.No one can deny that the menace of criminalisation in the Indian political system is growing day by day. Also, no one can deny that for maintaining purity of political system, persons with criminal antecedents and who are involved in criminalisation of political system should not be permitted to be the law-makers. The only question is, whether this Court can do so by issuing directions which do not have foundation in the statutory provisions. (Para 71)But our hands are tied; We can only appeal to the conscience of the law-makersHowever, in view of the constitutional scheme of separation of powers, though we desire that something urgently requires to be done in the matter, our hands are tied and we cannot transgress into the area reserved for the legislative arm of the State. We can only appeal to the conscience of the law-makers and hope that they will wake up soon and carry out a major surgery for weeding out the malignancy of criminalisation in politics. (Para 72) All these appeals have fallen on the deaf earsThis Court, time and again, has appealed to the law-makers of the Country to rise to the occasion and take steps for bringing out necessary amendments so that the involvement of persons with criminal antecedents in polity is prohibited. All these appeals have fallen on the deaf ears. The political parties refuse to wake up from deep slumber. (Para 72)The nation continues to wait, and is losing patienceThe nation continues to wait, and is losing patience. Cleansing the polluted stream of politics is obviously not one of the immediate pressing concerns of the legislative branch of government. (Para 17)Voter has a right to vote a candidate of his choice, a political party have the discretion to choose a candidate of its choice.There are various factors which a political party takes into consideration while selecting a candidate. As a citizen who possesses requisite qualifications and is not disqualified under any of the provisions of the Constitution or the Act of 1951, has a right to contest an election and a voter has a right to vote a candidate of his choice, a political party would also have the discretion to choose a candidate of its choice. (Para 27)A political party can give a reason that a candidate with criminal antecedents is found to be more suitable than a person who does not have itA possibility of a rival implicating someone falsely, as a political vendetta, is not unknown in the country. Take a situation wherein otherwise a highly meritorious candidate has been falsely implicated in some criminal matters by his rivals. As against this, a person who has a clean record, but totally unknown to the electorate in that area, applies for a ticket of a political party. In such a situation, a political party can always give a reason that a candidate with criminal antecedents is found to be more suitable than a person who does not have criminal antecedents. The reasons could be many. If the political party is of the prima facie opinion that such a candidate has been falsely implicated, it can say so. (Para 28)Reasons should not be with regard to "mere winnability at the polls"What has been provided by us in paragraph 4.2 of the Order dated 13.02.2020 is that the reasons should not be with regard to "mere winnability at the polls". As such, though a political party would have the freedom of selecting candidates of its choice, though having criminal antecedents, what would be required is to give reasons in support of such selection, and the reasons could be dependent on various factors including qualifications, achievements and other merits. At the cost of repetition, such a direction is only to enable a voter to have all the necessary information, so that he can exercise his right to franchise in an effective manner. The directions in no way impinge upon the right of a political party to choose a candidate of its own choice. (Para 28)On suggestion that the political parties could be directed to finalise their candidates before a substantial period In our view, unless the competent legislature takes a call on the issue and makes suitable statutory provisions, it will not be permissible for this Court to lay down such a guideline. (Para 35)It is a ground reality that in most of the cases the candidates are finalised by the political parties between the period commencing from the date of notification till the last date of withdrawal. Direction No. 4.4 requires the details to be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or not less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier. There should be no difficulty insofar as requirement to publish the...

Decriminalization Of Indian Politics: 13 Key Observations Made By Supreme Court Today

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Decriminalization Of Indian Politics: 13 Key Observations Made By Supreme Court Today

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers