ताकतवर ही सबसे भ्रष्ट …!

हमारे यहां सबसे शक्तिशाली समूह राजनीतिज्ञों का है। भ्रष्टाचार जैसी बीमारी को दूर करने का काम केवल राजनैतिक इच्छाशक्ति से ही हो सकता है। लेकिन सवाल यह है कि आखिर हमारा राजनीतिक सिस्टम इसमें पहल क्यों नहीं करता? इसका जवाब इन आंकड़ों में है : हमारे यहां दागी सांसदों की संख्या जहां 2004 में 43 प्रतिशत थी, वहीं यह 2019 में बढ़कर 43 फीसदी हो गई। इनमें भी सबसे ज्यादा संख्या सत्ताधारी पार्टी में है। हाल ही में बिहार में हुए चुनाव में दागी विधायकों की संख्या में 10 फीसदी की बढ़ोतरी हुई है। 2015 में जहां चुने हुए विधायकों में से 58 फीसदी पर आपराधिक मामले दर्ज थे, वहीं 2020 में यह संख्या बढ़कर 68 फीसदी हो गई। हमारे जनप्रतिनिधियों के दागी होने का मतलब यही है कि जब उनका दामन साफ नहीं होगा तो वे भ्रष्टाचार को दूर करने का प्रयास क्यों करेंगे, क्योंकि व्यवस्था में भ्रष्टाचार ही इन्हें अपने कारनामों को ढंकने मंे मदद करता है।

तो नागरिक क्या कर सकते हैं?

“ग्लोबल करप्शन बैरोमीटर’ रिपोर्ट कहती हैं कि हमारे यहां 46 फीसदी लोगों ने अपने संपर्कों के जरिए अपने काम करवाए। इनमें से अधिकांश काम छोटे-बड़े नेताओं के जरिए ही करवाए जाते हैं। अगर ये नेता मदद नहीं करते तो उस काम के लिए उन्हें रिश्वत देनी पड़ती। यानी यहां लोगों को यह समझने की जरूरत है कि राजनीतिज्ञ इतने शक्तिशाली हैं कि अगर वे चाहें तो वे पूरे सिस्टम को बदल सकते हैं। अब यह आम नागरिकों की जिम्मेदारी है कि वे नेता ही ऐसे चुनेें जिनकी ईमानदारी और निष्ठा तमाम सवालों से परे हो। अगर राजनीति ईमानदार होगी तो नौकरशाही को अपने आप ईमानदार होना होगा। शीर्ष नौकरशाह जब ईमानदार होंगे तो निचले स्तर पर कार्य करने वाले कर्मचारी भ्रष्टाचार करने का साहस नहीं कर पाएंगे। जब नेता ईमानदार होगा, अफसर ईमानदार होंगे, कर्मचारी ईमानदार होंगे तो आम लोगों में भी वे लोग जो अपने गलत काम भी पैसे देकर या जुगाड़ से करवा लेते हैं, उनके लिए यह सबकुछ इतना आसान नहीं रह जाएगा।

लेकिन यह होगा कैसे?

जनता ईमानदार नेता चुनें, यह कहना आसान है, लेकिन करना मुश्किल। इसके लिए हमें कुछ बुनियादी बदलाव करने होंगे। इलेक्टोरल बॉड्स को बंद करके राजनीतिक दलों को होने वाली फंडिंग में पारदर्शिता लानी होगी। आपराधिक रिकॉर्ड वाले लागों को चुनाव का टिकट देने पर रोक लगानी होगी और किसी दागी को टिकट देने पर संबंधित राजनीतिक दल के मुखिया को जिम्मेदार ठहराना होगा। इसके लिए सिविल सोसाइटी का दबाव बनाना होगा और जब भी जरूरत हो, कोर्ट का दरवाजा खटखटाने से भी नहीं पीछे नहीं रहना होगा। इसके लिए मीडिया को भी अहम भूमिका निभानी होगी।

कहां है समस्या?

- कुछ साल पहले एक जाने-माने राजनेता ने कहा था कि चुनावी फंडिंग ही भ्रष्टाचार की सबसे बड़ी गंगोत्री है। इससे निबटने के लिए सरकार इलेक्टोरल बॉन्ड्स लेकर आई, लेकिन इसने तो चुनावी फंडिंग को और भी अस्पष्ट और अपारदर्शी बना दिया है। दरअसल, हमारे राजनीतिज्ञ राजनीतिक फंडिंग में पारदर्शिता बिल्कुल नहीं चाहते। यह बात कुछ कारपोरेट्स हाउसेस को भी रास आती है, क्योंकि इससे वे बड़ी आसानी से राजनीतिक दलों को पैसा दे देते हैं और चुनावों के बाद सरकार से बेजा फायदा उठाते हैं।

- भ्रष्टाचार से निबटने के लिए हमें प्रभावी सीबीआई, सीवीसी और एंटी करप्शन ब्यूरो चाहिए। लेकिन इन सभी विभागों का मूल संगठन यानी पुलिस के बारे में आम धारणा यही है कि यह सबसे भ्रष्ट विभाग है। इसलिए हम पुलिस से और प्रकारांतर में इन तमाम संगठनों से यह उम्मीद नहीं कर सकते कि ये भ्रष्टाचार को मिटाने में कारगर रहेंगे, जब तक कि इनके पीछे राजनीतिक इच्छाशक्ति नहीं होगी।

- सरकारी सेवकों को भी जवाबदेह नहीं बनाया गया है। सरकारी शिक्षक स्कूल नहीं जाते हैं या जाते हैं तो पढ़ाते नहीं। डॉक्टर सरकारी हास्पिटल या प्राथमिक स्वास्थ्य केंद्र नहीं जाते। अस्पतालों में दवाइयां नहीं मिलती। सड़के, जलापूर्ति, बिजली और अन्य बुनियादी सुविधाओं की स्थिति अक्सर खराब मिलती है। और दुर्भाग्य से किसी को भी खराब काम करने या जिम्मेदारी न निभाने पर नौकरी से नहीं निकाला जाता। समस्या यह है कि अच्छा काम करने वाले को पुरस्कार भी नहीं मिलता। तो अच्छा काम करने की प्रेरणा भी नहीं मिलती।

केरल और बिहार के सबक …

एक रिपोर्ट के अनुसर केरल में केवल 10 फीसदी नागरिकों को अपने काम करवाने के लिए रिश्वत देनी पड़ी, जबकि बिहार में 75 फीसदी लोगों को। आखिर ऐसा क्यों है, इसको लेकर तो व्यापक अध्ययन की जरूरत है, लेकिन इसमें कहीं न कहीं शिक्षा और साक्षरता का योगदान तो नजर आता ही है। केरल भारत का सबसे साक्षर प्रदेश है, जबकि बिहार का नाम साक्षरता के मामले में नीचे से शीर्ष के राज्यों में शुमार होता है।

Originally published in Dainik Bhaskar.

In September 2018, a five-judge Constitution bench that included the Chief Justice of India, pronounced an important verdict on criminals in politics. The Supreme Court was hearing a batch of petitions seeking disqualification of candidates who had pending criminal cases. One of these petitions was a PIL filed by the Public Interest Foundation of India (PIF) in 2011. The director of the PIF had written these words even before the results of the 2014 elections were announced. “The next government will face the challenge of curbing corruption… It must be remembered that the government will be on probation as its performance would be critically tracked by a very vibrant civil society and media.”

That Director was later handpicked to become the principal secretary to the new Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, in 2014. The PIF petition had asked for the removal of criminals from the ballot. This was the petition that was disposed of by the Supreme Court in 2018. But its verdict unfortunately stopped short of disqualifying criminally tainted candidates.

The Central government, which was a defendant in the suit, firmly opposed the petition, saying that legislating a new disqualification was not in the domain of the court. It was for Parliament to pass such a law. Besides, the Centre used the old argument, that a person is innocent until proven guilty and cannot be deprived of the right to vote, or the right to contest elections merely based on criminal charges. The court expressed helplessness, and not for the first time. But the court did ask political parties and candidates to widely publicise their criminal records, “at least three times in newspapers and TV channels” after filing nomination papers.

Two years later, the Supreme Court was again hearing a contempt petition, that its 2018 order was being completely ignored by political parties. This time, even the Election Commission joined the PIL and asked the court to make political parties strictly liable for the disclosure of criminal cases of their candidates. The EC is, of course, itself toothless in disqualifying tainted candidates.

This time too, the apex court passed a harsh order, asking parties and candidates to widely publicise criminal histories in local, as well as national newspapers and on social media, including Twitter and Facebook. The published material needs to list details of the offence, charges framed, etc. And most importantly, the political party has to explain why the candidate was chosen despite the criminal taint. Merely saying that the candidate is winnable is not enough. And all this has to be done within 48 hours after the last date for withdrawal of nominations.
The Bihar assembly election is the first time this 2020 order of the Supreme Court is being tested. In the first phase, where 71 of 243 MLAs will be selected, 1,066 are in the fray. Of these, 31 have criminal cases. If you look at the data party-wise, 73 per cent of the candidates from the RJD, 72 per cent from the BJP, 59 per cent from the the LJP, 57 per cent from the Congress, 43 per cent from the JDU and 31 per cent from the BSP have criminal cases, among the major parties. It looks like the percentages of tainted candidates keeps going up in every successive election, just like the cut-off marks for admissions to Delhi University colleges.

Prima facie, the observance of the Supreme Court order is more in the breach. The EC has specified a format (Form 7) for declaring a candidate’s criminal record: the form must list details why the party chose a criminal candidate. Most parties and candidates have written that chances of winning are higher. On this, the parties might actually be totally truthful. But this shows the impunity with which the Supreme Court and the
EC’s orders are being flouted. There does not seem to be even an iota of effort to give tickets to candidates with a “clean” resume.
Can voters punish the tainted candidates? Unfortunately, this is not so easy. In the first phase of Bihar polls, 61 of 71 constituencies are “red alert” ones, meaning each of these has at least three or more candidates who have criminal records. So, the choice for voters is criminal versus criminal. It has been seen by researchers that criminally tainted candidates win, despite their image, perhaps partly because of their ability to raise resources to fund their own elections. No wonder the parties are quoting “winnability” as the reason in Form 7, to justify their choice of candidate. In this current first phase, more than one-third of all candidates are millionaires. Among the major parties, nearly 80 per cent are crorepatis. Since moneyed “bahubalis” have a higher chance of winning, the ratio of tainted legislators is almost double that among the candidates.
This trend of criminality among lawmakers is relentlessly going up. The share of members of Parliament who have criminal cases against them, has gone up from 24 per cent in 2004, to 30 per cent in 2009, 34 per cent in 2014 and is now at a whopping 43 per cent, as of 2019. These cases are not only about offences like loitering, breaking a curfew or defamation, but even serious cases like rape, murder, theft, kidnapping, assault and extortion. If you consider only serious criminal charges such as these, then 29 per cent of the current members of Parliament carry them, and this proportion is the highest in the past 16 years. Among the elected representatives, the proportion of crorepatis has gone up from 30 per cent in 2004 to 88 per cent in 2019.
The Supreme Court, through its 2020 order, thought that perhaps by shaming the parties, it could put some restraint on the rising trend of criminality among candidates. But this is clearly not visible so far in the Bihar assembly elections. And going by the trend of the past 16 years, it is unlikely to change. The only hope, apart from fast-tracking cases, is to disqualify tainted candidates from contesting. This can be done by amending the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Those who are tainted and desirous of being in public service can surely clear their name in a court of law, before contesting elections. Will the lawmakers take up this challenge to cleanse the political system?

The article was originally published on Free Press Journal.

“Indian politicians start their legislative careers with a lie — the false spending returns they submit? – Atal Bihari Vajpayee”

Achchhe din (Good days) are here for at least one category of persons in India: Those who contest elections and have pots of money. This good news is derived from a press note issued by the Election Commission of India (ECI) October 21, 2020.

For the record, the press note informs whoever may be interested that the ECI has constituted a two-member committee “to examine the issues concerning expenditure limit for a candidate in view of increase in number of electors and rise in Cost Inflation Index and other factors.”

Why should this be cause for celebration by those who contest elections, and have pots of money? The response to this question requires us to go into some legislative provisions (in simple words, ‘laws’) and some other regulations.

The root of the issue is found in Section 77 (3) of a ‘law’, The Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RP Act). This section reads, “The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.”

‘Laws’, most of the time, cannot be implemented as they are; they need to be operationalised by ‘Rules’ made under a particular ‘law’ by the Government of India. The RP Act was operationalised through The Conduct of Election Rules, 1966.

Rule 90 of the Conduct of Election Rules, ‘Maximum election expenses’ stipulates:

The total of the expenditure … which is incurred or authorized in connection with an election in a State or Union territory … shall not exceed … (an amount given in the accompanying Table).

These limits are specified separately for every state and Union territory and separately for Parliament and state Assemblies.

Since the power to amend the ‘rules’ rests with the Union government (and NOT with the ECI), all that the ECI does is to recommend to the Centre from time to time that the existing limit be increased to a higher amount that the ECI recommends. The central government usually approves the recommendations of the ECI.

This happens almost in every election. For example, the limit of election expenditure at the time of 2009 general elections was Rs 25 lakh for a Parliamentary constituency and Rs 10 lakh for an Assembly constituency in the bigger states.

These limits were subsequently increased and, till recently, were Rs 70 lakh for Lok Sabha and Rs 28 lakhs for state Assembly elections.

As recently as October 20, 2020, the Narendra Modi government has increased both these limits by 10 per cent, making the Lok Sabha limit as Rs 77 lakh and state election expenditure limit Rs 30.6 lakh.

Ostensibly, it is to replace such ad hoc or random increases (because there has never been a decrease in the limits so far) that the ECI has set up the committee. The ‘terms of reference’ of the Committee are:

1. To assess the change in number of electors across the states / Union territories and its bearing on expenditure
2. To assess the change in Cost Inflation Index and its bearing on the pattern of expenditure incurred by the candidates in recent elections
3. To seek views / inputs of political parties and other stakeholders
4. To examine other factors which may have bearings on expenditure
5. To examine any other related issue

To bring in a kind of a logical basis for fixing election expenditure limits is, on the face of it, a laudable exercise. But then why is it that the title of this piece has the word ‘charade’ in it? Let’s see.

Why ‘charade’

To unravel this, we need to understand what purpose are the limits supposed to achieve, and what do they actually achieve.

The ostensible purpose, though not explicitly stated, seems to be to minimise or normalise the impact of money, or big money, on the electoral process. To use a cliché, it is to provide a ‘level playing field’, or at least as level a playing field as possible.

This is so that persons who have humongous amounts of money to spend on elections, do not end up cornering all the seats, and those who have less money do have a more or less equal chance of getting elected.

To achieve this, every candidate contesting elections to Parliament and a state Assembly is required, under Section 77 (1) of the RP Act to:

keep a separate and correct account of all expenditure in connection with the election incurred or authorized by him or by his election agent between the date on which he has been nominated and the date of declaration of the result thereof, both dates inclusive.

Further, Section 78(1) of the same Act, requires:

Every contesting candidate at an election (to) … lodge with the District Election Officer … an account of his election expenses … within thirty days from the date of (declaration of the result of the election).

This is required to be submitted as a sworn affidavit. As mentioned above, “The total of the said expenditure shall not exceed such amount as may be prescribed.”

If the actual expenditure of any of the elected persons exceeds the permissible limit, that election can be set aside.

The reality

To do a reality check on these election expenditure affidavits, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) — a civil society group working on electoral and political reforms — analysed the affidavits of 5,743 candidates after the 2009 Lok Sabha elections.

This analysis showed that only four candidates declared expenditure above the then limit of Rs 16 lakh. Thirty candidates had declared that they had spent between 90 and 95 per cent of the limit.

The remaining (5,743-4-30=) 5,719 or 99.58 per cent said they had spent between 45 and 55 per cent of the limit.

Then there is other relevant information. On June 27, 2013, one of the prominent leaders of one of the leading political parties, who became a central minister after the 2014 Lok Sabha election, said in a public meeting that he had spent Rs 8 crores on his 2009 Lok Sabha election.

It is worth recalling that the limit for expenditure for Lok Sabha in 2009 was Rs 25 lakhs. The same person had declared in his sworn affidavit that his actual election expenditure was Rs 19.63 lakh.

With 99.58 per cent of the candidates saying that they had spent 45-55 per cent of the limit, there is a widespread clamour, almost at every election, that the ceiling on expenditure is too low and it should be increased.

A former chief election commissioner, when shown this data, said based on this data, the limit should be decreased and not increased.

To what extent has the election expenditure limit been successful in providing a ‘level playing field’ can be seen from the fact that while the 2004 Lok Sabha had 153 (30 per cent) of MPs who were crorepatis, the number in the 2009 Lok Sabha as 315 (58 per cent).

The 2014 Lok Sabha saw this number go up to 443 (82 per cent). The figure in the 2019 Lok Sabha is 479 (88 per cent).

It should be evident from the above that the limits on election expenditure by candidates does not serve any purpose at all.

Then there is the elephant in the room: There is no limit on the expenditure that political parties can incur during elections!

The only ways to control expenditure on elections and to provide a ‘level-playing field’ to rich and poor candidates alike are to (a) make political parties democratic in their internal functioning and (b) make their finances transparent, by law. How these two will achieve these objectives is another story.

The article was originally published on Down to Earth.

2014 के लोक सभा चुनाव में एडीआर द्वारा उम्मीदवारों के हलफनामों के विश्लेषण के अध्ययन से यह ज्ञात हुआ कि 113 सांसदों की संपत्ति में सौ गुणा, 26 सांसदों की संपत्ति में पांच सौ गुणा वृद्धि हुई है। इनमें 113 सांसदों ने अपना पेशा बतौर समाज सेवा, राजनीति एवं सामाजिक कार्य बताया था। आश्रितों में आठ की पत्नियां गृहिणी थी, लेकिन उनकी संपत्ति करोड़ों में थी। जाहिर है ये सभी आय के स्रोत नहीं हो सकते है। बिहार इलेक्शन वॉच के अध्ययन का भी हवाला दिया जा सकता है कि पिछले विधानसभा में निर्वाचित विधायकों की संपत्ति से उनके आश्रितों की संपत्ति पचास प्रतिशत से अधिक थी। 2015 के विधानसभा में यह भी देखने को मिला कि 43 विधानसभा सदस्यों की पत्नियों की संपत्ति में पचास प्रतिशत से अधिक की वृद्धि देखी गयी। एक विधायक की संपत्ति दो लाख थी वही उनके आश्रित एक करोड़ के स्वामी थे। यानी आश्रितों की संपत्ति में 97.87 प्रतिशत की वृद्धि देखी गई। इस क्रम में 43 ऐसे माननीय है जिनकी संपत्ति अपने आश्रितों से भी कम है यानी समाज सेवा के नाम पर राजनीति कर रहे विधानसभा सदस्यों को अपने आश्रितों पर ही निर्भर रहना पड़ता है। याचिका कर्ता का यह कहना है कि अब जनता को अपने प्रतिनिधियों को पकड़ना आसान हो जाएगा कि उनकी संपत्ति पिछले कुछ सालों में कितनी बढ़ गई है और उसके आय के जायज स्रोत क्या है ? मतदाताओं को यह जानने का अधिकार है कि आखिर इनकी संपत्ति दिन – दूनी रात चौगुनी कैसे बढ़ रही है। अदालत के आदेश के तहत उम्मीदवारों को न सिर्फ अपनी आय के स्रोत बताने होंगे बल्कि अपनी पत्नी, बेटा, बहु, बेटी दामाद की आय के साथ उनके स्रोत की भी घोषणा करनी होगी।  सर्वविदित है कि बेहिसाब संपत्ति की घोषणा करने के साथ ही यह गोपनीय रहा करता था कि उनकी बेहिसाब संपत्ति का आखिर स्रोत क्या है ? गौर करने वाली बात है कि कमोबेश चुनावों में सभी उम्मीदवारों के द्वारा समाज सेवा या राजनीति को बतौर पेशा बताया जाता है। आखिर राजनीति या समाज सेवा कोई पेशा नहीं होता तो फिर उनकी अकूत संपत्ति का राज आमलोगों को समझ में नहीं आ पाता है ? किसी भी सांसद या विधायक के आय से अधिक संपत्ति माफिया राज को रास्ता माना जाता है। जिसका असर राजनेताओं के भ्रष्टाचार पर पड़ता है।

ऐसा देखा जा रहा है कि अपने परिजनों के नाम पर ऐसे राजनेता कई पीढ़ियों के लिए बेहिसाब संपत्ति बना लेते है वही दूसरी ओर गरीब जनता की सेहत में सालों कोई परिवर्तन नहीं आ पाता। इन माननीयों की संपत्ति और आय के अंर्तसंबन्धों को समझने के लिए 2015 बिहार विधानसभा चुनाव में 160 ऐसे उम्मीदवारों की आय का विश्लेषण किया गया जिनकी 2010 में संपत्ति 84.41 लाख थी, लेकिन 2015 में उनकी संपत्ति में औसतन 199 प्रतिशत वृद्धि देखी गयी यानि औसतन 2.57 लाख। इन पांच सालों में 1.71 करोड़ वृद्धि हुई। इनमें पांच ऐसे नाम है जिनकी संपत्ति 553 प्रतिशत, 480 प्रतिशत, 354 प्रतिशत, 279 प्रतिशत और 210 प्रतिशत तक वृद्धि देखी गयी। विधानसभा के साथ लोकसभा, राज्य सभा एवं प्रदेश के सर्वोच्च पदों पर आसीन राजनेताओं की स्थिति कमोबेश समान ही देखी गयी है।

मूल रूप से प्रभात खबर में प्रकाशित!

In the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections in Bihar, women voter turnout was nearly 59.92% against 55.26% male turnout. During the same elections, only 9% (56) women candidates contested in the elections and out of 40 overall winners, only three were women. Such a drastic gap between the large percentage of women voters and the meagre representation of women legislators, forces us to ponder over the possible reasons for such poor women representation in Bihar. Moreover, all these three women MPs were crorepatis, and had declared criminal and serious criminal cases against themselves. While one MP was 10th Pass, the other two were graduate and post-graduate respectively, at the time of analysis conducted by ADR.

As per a research paper titled – Women Representation in Parliament: A continuing predicament – by Ms Vaishali Rawat (previously a researcher at ADR) – about 75% of the 16th Lok Sabha women MPs had political connections, and only 20.63% women MPs had zilch political-influential connections. It is interesting to note that the three women MPs elected in the 2019 Lok Sabha Elections in Bihar are/were wives of Indian politicians. This raises the issue of dynasty politics which is deeply rooted not only in Bihar but also in other parts of India.

During the Bihar Assembly Elections 2015, 8% (273)  women contested in the elections, out of which 15% had criminal and 10% had serious criminal cases against themselves. Out of 28 women MLAs analysed by ADR in the same elections, nine had criminal and five had serious criminal cases against themselves. The only woman who was given a ministerial berth, had an untainted background at the time of analysis and was 12th Pass. Moreover, 2015 Bihar Assembly Elections saw a decline in the number of women MLAs (28) against 2010 Bihar Assembly Elections (34 women MLAs). This decline raises questions regarding the changed mindset of the Bihar electorate.

Talking about the candidates contested in the Bihar Assembly Elections 2015, 24% women candidates were literate which made the majority, followed by 12th Pass & 10th Pass with 18% and 17%, respectively. Out of the 28 women MLAs analysed by ADR in the same elections, around 29% of the women MLAs were 12th Pass which made the majority, followed by 18% 10th Pass women MLAs. 

ADR’s analysis revealed that, out of 273 women candidates, around 88 (32%) were crorepati candidates and out of 28 women MLAs, about 64% were crorepati candidates. Also, it doesn’t come across as a surprise that the only woman who was given the ministerial berth was a crorepati minister, at the time of analysis.

Bihar recently saw bye-elections in 2019 in five constituencies wherein out of 43 candidates, only four (9%) women candidates contested in the elections and no one managed to secure a seat which again reflects the poor women representation in the Bihar Elections.

In an analysis by Economic & Political Weekly released in January 2011, patriarchal structure of Indian politics, no women reservation in Parliament and State Assembly elections, lack of family support, and reluctance in giving tickets to women by the political parties were some of the reasons for poor representation of women in the legislature. 

Political parties claim that “winnability factor” is one of the major reasons for not giving tickets to women. An article in Business Standard puts this myth to rest by revealing that in 2010 Bihar Assembly Elections, 91% of JD (U) and 84% of BJP female contestants had won. The same article also revealed how political realignment in 2015 Bihar Assembly Elections hurt the women’s representation.

In a research paper, Women Legislators and Economic Performance (paper focussing on India’s state legislative assemblies), researchers reveal that:

• legislators with a criminal record are more likely to practise corruption, to have priorities other than economic development, and, possibly, are less likely to provide a stable business environment
• male legislators (in the close election sample) are about three times as likely as female legislators to have criminal charges pending against them
• women legislators in India raise luminosity growth in their constituencies by about 15 percentage points per annum more than male legislators

2020 Bihar Assembly elections will be the first election wherein the Election Commission of India will implement the Supreme Court’s order on listing the reasons for giving tickets to tainted candidates by political parties. With this and the findings mentioned in the paper -Women Legislators and Economic Performance – as the basis, it can be said that there is a huge scope of increasing the representation of women representation. This development could reduce criminality and corruption, and advance the socio-economic condition of Bihar.

It is explicit that women voter turnout is increasing while women representation still remains insignificant in Bihar elections. To ensure better women representation in the upcoming Bihar elections, it is paramount that political parties in Bihar reserve 33% tickets for women, corresponding to West Bengal’s Trinamool Congress and Odisha’s Biju Janata Dal who had fielded 41% and 33% women candidates, respectively, in 2019 Lok Sabha Elections. The responsibility to empower women leaders doesn’t end with reserving seats, it is critical that the reserved tickets should be given to women candidates with no criminal and political-influential background. More importantly, the political parties should assure financial assistance by supporting the political campaigns of the women candidates.

Women in Bihar protested against the increased liquor consumption and it is noteworthy how to garner votes from them ahead of 2015 Bihar Assembly Elections, Mr Nistish Kumar (current Chief Minister of Bihar) promised liquor prohibition. It was the same demand which Mr Kumar had once refused but after winning the 2015 Assembly Elections, he declared Bihar as a dry state and fulfilled his promise which he made to the women of Bihar. With this, it is evident how women can influence policies positively. It is fair to say that women voters in Bihar will be playing a major role in deciding the new government in Bihar.

With the 2020 Bihar Assembly Elections around the corner, it raises some pertinent questions like – will the political parties give tickets to more women candidates and if they do so, will women dynasts be favoured?, will Bihar see a rise in women Ministers and MLAs?, will the current women MLAs retain their respective seat?, and more importantly, will the Bihar electorate vote for women candidates with no criminal background?

The article was originally published on The Logical Indian.

Image Credit: TV9 Gujarati

The Supreme Court this week came down heavily on criminalisation of politics. It asked political parties to explain why they need to give tickets to people with criminal backgrounds. The court also asked them to publicise widely, through websites and social media, the impressive “résumé” of these criminal elements. Let the voters know. The judges also asked whether winnability alone counts in ticket giving, and should parties not be doing something to clean the polity. The latest order is actually a reiteration of a similar one passed in 2018, asking parties to give wide publicity to criminally tainted candidates through newspapers. Alas, the top court stopped short of disqualifying tainted candidates. There is no law in the land that prevents criminally charged persons from standing for elections. In the absence of such a law, which seems unlikely to be passed by Parliament, the court could step in, and put a disqualification criteria.

The right to stand for elections is not a fundamental right. So if we put some restriction on who can and cannot stand, it is not like we are suppressing their freedom of speech or right to livelihood. All we have is a 1951law on who is qualified to stand for elections to Parliament and assemblies. That law states a minimum age requirement, and that you must not be convicted of certain crimes (typically those that attract minimum two years of jail). But since our judicial system works slowly, and a conviction in a lower court can be appealed in a higher court, and the process can continue ad infinitum, technically you are innocent until proven guilty by the highest authority. So this law is not able to prevent any criminally tainted person from standing for elections. The unfortunate trend is that in the past two decades the number of criminally tainted elected lawmakers has increased. In 2004, 24 per cent of MPs had pending criminal cases. This went up to 30 per cent in 2009, to 34 in 2014 and is now a whopping 43 per cent in the current Lok Sabha. The upward trend is seen in many assemblies as well. The stats are dismal and depressing.

But there is a predictable howl from politicians. They say most of these cases are frivolous or false charges. And that the ruling party often resorts to filing cases against leaders of the opposition. And the cycle continues with tit for tat. It is as if we have widespread practice of the politics of vendetta. If that is so, then it is the parties themselves that can put a stop to it. Moreover, if indeed a person is innocent and reeling under false charges, then he or she can clear their name in the court of law, get acquitted and then stand for election. Just wait till your name gets cleared. Maybe institute a fast track court for such cases. Surely a nation of more than a billion people should be able to find a few thousand clean, untainted candidates? But there seems to be no progress on this front, as criminalisation just keeps getting worse. In fact in nearly 40 per cent of the constituencies, there are three or more tainted candidates. So voters have no choice but to vote for a criminal candidate. That’s why we need an activist Supreme Court that can introduce a disqualification clause. At least those charged with heinous crimes such as murder, rape, kidnap and dacoity should be prohibited. Some states like Rajasthan tried to disqualify candidates who did not have some minimum education. This was for municipal and panchayat elections. Some states already disqualify you for a sarpanch post if you have more than two kids. These conditions are much more anti-democratic than disqualifying on the basis of criminal record.

While we wait for voters to reject criminally tainted candidates (i.e. the demand side pressure), let us also pass laws to disqualify at least those who have very serious charges against them (i.e. supply side pressure). Only then can we make progress on cleansing politics. Otherwise, our record will keep getting murky (the latest Delhi state election outcome is no exception), and our standing as a robust and vibrant democracy will keep getting embarrassing.

The article was originally published on Mumbai Mirror.

The effect of money power and criminalization of politics has been examined by several committees and authorities which have repeatedly emphasized the need to weed out criminal elements and unaccounted money from politics. Vohra Committee Report, 1993; Indrajeet Gupta Committee Report on State Finding of Elections; The 170th Report of Law Commission of India on Reforms of the Electoral Laws (1999); National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution, 2000; The Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law and Justice (2007); Ethics in Governance Report: Second Administrative Reforms Commission,2007; The 244th Law Commission of India Report on Electoral Disqualification; Justice J.S Verma Committee Report on Criminal Law Amendment; The 255th Law Commission Report on Electoral Reforms are few of these committees/commissions which had considered the problem of money and muscle in elections. Some of the important recommendations are as follows:

•Disqualification from contesting elections if charges have been framed against a candidate in an offence punishable with imprisonment for a maximum period of five years or more.
•Permanent disqualification of candidates who are convicted of heinous crimes like rape, murder, dacoity, robbery, crimes against women etc.
•Disqualification of candidates furnishing false information in the election affidavit.
•Limit on the election expenditure of political parties.
•Disclosure of all sources of funds received by the political parties, irrespective of the amount.
•Cancellation of tax exemptions given to the political parties in case of default.
•Requirement to strengthen NOTA and make it more effective.
•Immediate need to bring political parties under the ambit of RTI Act.
•Introduce provisions for inner-party democracy within political parties/Choosing of candidates.
•Bring in a comprehensive bill to regulate working of political parties/Legislation for regulation and functioning of Political Parties.

In an effort towards making electoral and political process transparent as well as accountable in their functioning Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has filed a petition in the Supreme Court to bring political parties under the ambit of RTI Act. ADR has also challenged in the Supreme Court amendments brought to the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 & 1976 respectively that changed the definition of a “foreign source” to quietly let BJP and the Congress off the legal hook of the Delhi High Court judgment where they were found guilty of taking foreign funding. ADR has also challenged the Finance Act, 2017 enacted as Money Bill which had introduced a system of electoral bonds and had also removed the previous limit of 7.5 per cent of the company’s average three-year net profit for political donations. A petition has been also filed in the Delhi High Court for the regulation and monitoring of election expenses of political parties and to also have a limit on the election expenditure of political parties.

Furthermore, few electoral reforms initiated over the last two-three decades have been due to legal advocacy and judicial activism. Indian judiciary has also tried to safeguard and ensure that the representative democracy is truly reflected in the form of people’s will and mandate. To name a few of such landmark judgments;

•Disclosure of criminal, financial and educational details by candidates contesting elections to Parliament and State Assemblies.
•Declaration of Section 8(4) of the Representation of People Act unconstitutional, which allowed a •Member of the Parliament and State Legislative Assemblies to retain their membership of the House they were elected to, for three months to enable them to file an appeal in the higher court.
•Inclusion of NOTA buttons on the EVMs.
•Direction to all High Courts to conclude trial against sitting MPs and MLAs who have charges framed against them for the offences specified under Section 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) of the RP Act, within one year from the date of the framing of charge(s).
•Compulsory for the Returning Officers to ensure that the affidavits filed by the contestant blank all respects and to reject the affidavits having blank particulars.
•Non-disclosure of information, which is very vital to enable the voter to form his/her opinion about the candidate’s antecedents, results in misinformation and disinformation thereby influencing the voters to take an uninformed decision.
•Inclusion of column pertaining to “Sources of income” of the candidate, spouse and dependents in Form 26.
•Publication and widely circulation of information related to criminal background by candidates as well as political parties.

The Executive and the Legislature are most reluctant to undertake electoral reforms because of the obvious bias and prejudice. As a matter of fact, the political establishments have completely disregarded or intentionally side-lined the reforms suggested by various committees, citizens and civil societies. The Judiciary has only been somewhat successful since most of the directions given by courts are eventually amended by the successive governments for their own benefit. Over a period, we have observed criminalization, burgeoning election expenditure, political party funding, and inadequate reporting and disclosure laws. There is a complete agreement that change is needed, but there are serious differences on how to go about it. We may be at the centre or vortex of a whirlpool of events. It is high time to examine aspects of crime and money in politics with a specific focus on ‘how to reverse this trend’ and also suggest measures required to make elected representatives and political parties more responsive towards initiating reforms.

Our country’s systems will not be rid of their vulnerabilities until the Political system’s shortcomings are fixed first. There are institutions to enforce the law, but they are controlled politically as well – whether direct or indirect, nevertheless, Law and Order and the Criminal Justice System cannot function unless the Political system is brought under the purview of the law.
-Prof. Jagdeep Chhokar

Lok Manch – Corruption in Politics