A Landmark Verdict

The Supreme Court verdict in a public interest litigation on candidates with a criminal background contesting in elections is as unique, decisive and epoch making as it is a long overdue one. The apex court has directed political parties to display the pending criminal cases of their candidates who contest on their ticket on their official websites. The court has also urged the Parliament to enact a strong legislation that makes it obligatory for political parties to remove leaders charged with “heinous and grievous” crimes, such as rape, murder and kidnapping, to name only a few, and refuse ticket to offenders in both parliamentary and Assembly polls so as to cleanse political parties of leaders facing trial for serious crimes.

The court directions that both the candidate and the political party should declare the criminal antecedents of the former in widely-circulated newspapers and that both the candidate and the political party should give “wide publicity” to the criminal record of the former by airing it on TV channels at least thrice after the filing of nomination papers, are most welcome and reflect the years old aspirations of the enlightened masses. (Newspapers may perhaps have to publish directories or special editions to accommodate all names!)

The nation hopes that the verdict is the first step in the process of breaking the crime-politics nexus which has its strong roots traversing deep down the entire society. There are however two concerns surrounding the implementation of the verdict. First, in what manner the political parties try to circumvent these directions remains to be seen. Secondly, we have many instances of voters with full knowledge of the colossal notoriety or proven criminal antecedents of candidates repeatedly electing them. This could undoubtedly be the outcome of the wily power and dazzle of money, which the candidate might be splashing in the election campaign.

At the same time, there are instances where the voters regret their choice and election of representative after seeing their third rate character and behavior in the public, post election. No doubt, many such faces with their bafoonery, gestures and expressions might be parading in the minds of the reader of this write-up while reading this. There should also be a new constitutional provision which gives the right to the voters to recall such elected representatives, who are sheer accidental wrong choices and are a mockery of democracy. It is sincerely hoped that this may also become a reality in the near future.