Banning criminal netas a must !

Hasn’t the last Supreme Court headed by Dipak Misra failed the people by leaving the crucial matter of “infusing purity in politics” and not barring politicians facing criminal charges from contesting elections before they are convicted? It all depends on how you look at critical issues of our democracy.
It may be somewhat legally unfair or misplaced to bar “potential lawmakers” from contesting polls before they are convicted by the due process of law. However, the necessary legal correctives can easily be found in this regard by constituting time-bound fast-track special courts. Justice has not only to be done but also seen to be done. Nothing of the sort had been suggested by the five-member Constitution bench of the apex court on this count. Instead, the Hon’ble Court said that the “self-publicity would help curb criminalization of politics” and thereby left the matter to Parliament to “urgently enact” a law to prevent tainted criminals from becoming lawmakers.
Regrettably, I do not find much substance in the observations of the country’s highest court. It is nowhere near the ground reality. In this context, we all know how our Parliament has been conducting itself for decades.
Presently, those politicians convicted of heinous crimes like murder, rape and kidnapping are barred from contesting elections. But, my point is: why not ensure cleaner electoral politics by barring those with criminal charges from contesting elections?

N.N. Vohra There are, of course, views and counter-views in this matter on the presumption that such persons are “innocent” until they are proven guilty”. I am not questioning this proposition. All the same, we cannot ignore harsh realities on the ground and power games openly played by all political parties and their leaders. This scenario is highly disquieting, to say the least.Interestingly, the apex court was told by the Centre in March this year that as many as 1,765 “people’s representatives” in Parliament and legislatures in the country face criminal charges. This works out to be a little over a third of all representatives in India. This is surely not a happy situation for healthy growth of democracy.

Dipak Misra The moot question is: What is being done promptly and effectively to nip the ‘criminal-neta nexus’ in the bud? Not much has been done in this regard, though last year, the Supreme Court’s two-judge bench had asked the government to set up 12 special courts across 11 states and Delhi to deal with cases related to elected representatives. I am not sure how fast these fast courts are in view of the fact that money and muscle power has been spreading its tentacles fast across the country. I do understand the courts’ cautious approach on ‘criminal politicians’. The apex court perhaps does not wish to cross the Lakshman rekha on the separation of powers as provided for in the Constitution. Hence, the remark by then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra: “It is the duty of Parliament to keep money and muscle at bay. Parliament should cure the malignancy before it becomes fatal to democracy”. But can this be done?
Well, money and muscle power has almost become fatal to the working of our democratic polity. No one has the right answer as to how the ‘criminal-neta’ nexus has to be broken.

I, however, appreciate honest appraisal of the problem of the “criminal-neta nexus” by the apex court. It recalled Mumbai’s serial blasts of 1993 which exposed how the “citadel of democracy” was being destroyed. It recalled the findings of the famous N.N. Vohra Committee report of October 5, 1993, which also contained inputs from the CBI, IB and RAW.

The Vohra Committee had clearly expressed grave concern that “all over the years, several criminals had been elected to local bodies, state assemblies and Parliament”. I am sorry to say that the Vohra Committee report has been gathering dust in the corridors of power while governments have come and gone at the Centre and in the states. Who cares?

Ranjan Gogoi In 2014 the Law Commission, on the direction of the SC, studied the problem of criminalisation of politics. It submitted its report in 2014, saying between 2004 and 2014, as many as 18 per cent of candidates contesting national or state elections had criminal cases against them and half of them faced serious charges of murder, attempt to murder, rape and corruption as well as charges under MCOCA.
The Supreme Court’s dilemma on the criminalization of politics and half-hearted steps taken to prevent it is understandable. In a way, it is a matter of finding a decent constitutional way out of the problem. But curiously enough, while ordering candidates to advertise in the media about their criminal antecedents, it has refrained from crossing the ‘Lakshman rekha’ of the legislative arena!
Apparently, the Supreme Court has played safe but, in the process has overlooked the larger issue of ordinary voters’ psyche on the growing signs of criminalization of the polity. With the poverty and literacy level being what it is, most of the average people hardly understand where criminality begins and where it ends. Not that Indian voters lack common sense. They have enough of it.
But their problem is the vitiated criminalized atmosphere in which they struggle to survive because of bullying tactics of their local “netas” who send “shivers down” their “spine”.
Justice Dipak Misra had then said, “we share your concern. We will think of a constitutional remedy ….Parliament has an obligation under Article 102(1)(E) to make a law. As conscience-keepers of the Constitution, we (Supreme Court) can ask you (Parliament) to do it”.

My concern is: where are “consciencekeepers” in the country’s political arena today? I expect the judiciary to find out a “constitutional remedy” since the country’s law-makers today are a mixed lot with crorepatis and crimanalpatis, considering that 35 per cent to 45 per cent of them have criminal records or face such charges. Looking beyond, our democracy has to go all the way down and must attempt to build transparency and accountability in the system. We can’t settle for what Owens called as “false democracy”. Socrates said: “To know yourself is the beginning of wisdom”. It is time we understood ourselves as individuals and as a nation. Then alone shall we have the wisdom to understand the ground realities and the pangs of sufferings of the have-nots and harassed resourceless litigants. We also must achieve the necessary will to remove the ills afflicting the nation at all levels of our democracy. Here Aristotle’s words in his famous treatise “Politics” are worth recalling. He said : “….To live by the rule of the constitution ought not to be regarded as slavery but rather as salvation”. Mercifully, the Supreme court’s bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Uday U. Lalit and KM Joseph said on November 1 that it will put the focus back on a PIL’s main plea to impose life ban on elected representatives and politicians once they are convicted in a criminal case.

It may be recalled that the PIL had been filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay. Meanwhile, the apex court has sought response from all High courts on this suggestion and has posted the matter for further hearing on December 4.

I am hoping for a positive outcome of this PIL for a life ban on convicted politicians from contesting elections. Thanks a lot Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi for taking the right initiative in this delicate arena !



		EDITOR'S MAIL EDITOR'S COMMENT REALPOLITIK GLOBAL AFFAIRS FRANKLY SPEAKING BANK FRAUDS DATA WARFARE QUALITY OF GOVERNANCE POLITICO-ECONOMIC WISDOM QUALITY OF EDUCATION TAMIL POLITICS KARNATAKA BYPOLLS OPPOSITION PARTIES ANDHRA POLITICS CHANDIGARH DIARY HIMALYAN ECOLOGY HITS & MISSES OBITUARY BOOK BAZAAR BONE MARROW TRANS.. A PAGE FROM HISTORY SIGNS OF THE TIMES REMEMBERING PRES KALAM INTERNATIONAL FILMS YOGA IN DAILY LIFE ART OF LIVING Issue:December' 2018 Subscribe Now	MATTERS OF PUBLIC POLICY Banning criminal netas a must ! Hasn’t the last Supreme Court headed by Dipak Misra failed the people by leaving the crucial matter of “infusing purity in politics” and not barring politicians facing criminal charges from contesting elections before they are convicted? It all depends on how you look at critical issues of our democracy. It may be somewhat legally unfair or misplaced to bar “potential lawmakers” from contesting polls before they are convicted by the due process of law. However, the necessary legal correctives can easily be found in this regard by constituting time-bound fast-track special courts. Justice has not only to be done but also seen to be done. Nothing of the sort had been suggested by the five-member Constitution bench of the apex court on this count. Instead, the Hon’ble Court said that the “self-publicity would help curb criminalization of politics” and thereby left the matter to Parliament to “urgently enact” a law to prevent tainted criminals from becoming lawmakers. Regrettably, I do not find much substance in the observations of the country’s highest court. It is nowhere near the ground reality. In this context, we all know how our Parliament has been conducting itself for decades. Presently, those politicians convicted of heinous crimes like murder, rape and kidnapping are barred from contesting elections. But, my point is: why not ensure cleaner electoral politics by barring those with criminal charges from contesting elections? N.N. Vohra There are, of course, views and counter-views in this matter on the presumption that such persons are “innocent” until they are proven guilty”. I am not questioning this proposition. All the same, we cannot ignore harsh realities on the ground and power games openly played by all political parties and their leaders. This scenario is highly disquieting, to say the least.Interestingly, the apex court was told by the Centre in March this year that as many as 1,765 “people’s representatives” in Parliament and legislatures in the country face criminal charges. This works out to be a little over a third of all representatives in India. This is surely not a happy situation for healthy growth of democracy. Dipak Misra The moot question is: What is being done promptly and effectively to nip the ‘criminal-neta nexus’ in the bud? Not much has been done in this regard, though last year, the Supreme Court’s two-judge bench had asked the government to set up 12 special courts across 11 states and Delhi to deal with cases related to elected representatives. I am not sure how fast these fast courts are in view of the fact that money and muscle power has been spreading its tentacles fast across the country. I do understand the courts’ cautious approach on ‘criminal politicians’. The apex court perhaps does not wish to cross the Lakshman rekha on the separation of powers as provided for in the Constitution. Hence, the remark by then Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra: “It is the duty of Parliament to keep money and muscle at bay. Parliament should cure the malignancy before it becomes fatal to democracy”. But can this be done? Well, money and muscle power has almost become fatal to the working of our democratic polity. No one has the right answer as to how the ‘criminal-neta’ nexus has to be broken. My concern is: where are “consciencekeepers” in the country’s political arena today? I expect the judiciary to find out a “constitutional remedy” since the country’s law-makers today are a mixed lot with crorepatis and crimanalpatis, considering that 35 per cent to 45 per cent of them have criminal records. I, however, appreciate honest appraisal of the problem of the “criminal-neta nexus” by the apex court. It recalled Mumbai’s serial blasts of 1993 which exposed how the “citadel of democracy” was being destroyed. It recalled the findings of the famous N.N. Vohra Committee report of October 5, 1993, which also contained inputs from the CBI, IB and RAW. The Vohra Committee had clearly expressed grave concern that “all over the years, several criminals had been elected to local bodies, state assemblies and Parliament”. I am sorry to say that the Vohra Committee report has been gathering dust in the corridors of power while governments have come and gone at the Centre and in the states. Who cares? Ranjan Gogoi In 2014 the Law Commission, on the direction of the SC, studied the problem of criminalisation of politics. It submitted its report in 2014, saying between 2004 and 2014, as many as 18 per cent of candidates contesting national or state elections had criminal cases against them and half of them faced serious charges of murder, attempt to murder, rape and corruption as well as charges under MCOCA. The Supreme Court’s dilemma on the criminalization of politics and half-hearted steps taken to prevent it is understandable. In a way, it is a matter of finding a decent constitutional way out of the problem. But curiously enough, while ordering candidates to advertise in the media about their criminal antecedents, it has refrained from crossing the ‘Lakshman rekha’ of the legislative arena! Apparently, the Supreme Court has played safe but, in the process has overlooked the larger issue of ordinary voters’ psyche on the growing signs of criminalization of the polity. With the poverty and literacy level being what it is, most of the average people hardly understand where criminality begins and where it ends. Not that Indian voters lack common sense. They have enough of it. But their problem is the vitiated criminalized atmosphere in which they struggle to survive because of bullying tactics of their local “netas” who send “shivers down” their “spine”. Justice Dipak Misra had then said, “we share your concern. We will think of a constitutional remedy ….Parliament has an obligation under Article 102(1)(E) to make a law. As conscience-keepers of the Constitution, we (Supreme Court) can ask you (Parliament) to do it”. My concern is: where are “consciencekeepers” in the country’s political arena today? I expect the judiciary to find out a “constitutional remedy” since the country’s law-makers today are a mixed lot with crorepatis and crimanalpatis, considering that 35 per cent to 45 per cent of them have criminal records or face such charges. Looking beyond, our democracy has to go all the way down and must attempt to build transparency and accountability in the system. We can’t settle for what Owens called as “false democracy”. Socrates said: “To know yourself is the beginning of wisdom”. It is time we understood ourselves as individuals and as a nation. Then alone shall we have the wisdom to understand the ground realities and the pangs of sufferings of the have-nots and harassed resourceless litigants. We also must achieve the necessary will to remove the ills afflicting the nation at all levels of our democracy. Here Aristotle’s words in his famous treatise “Politics” are worth recalling. He said : “….To live by the rule of the constitution ought not to be regarded as slavery but rather as salvation”. Mercifully, the Supreme court’s bench of Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi and Justices Uday U. Lalit and KM Joseph said on November 1 that it will put the focus back on a PIL’s main plea to impose life ban on elected representatives and politicians once they are convicted in a criminal case. It may be recalled that the PIL had been filed by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay. Meanwhile, the apex court has sought response from all High courts on this suggestion and has posted the matter for further hearing on December 4. I am hoping for a positive outcome of this PIL for a life ban on convicted politicians from contesting elections. Thanks a lot Chief Justice Ranjan Gogoi for taking the right initiative in this delicate arena !