There has been a demand for years that the entry of tainted leaders into politics should be banned. But the Central Government has recently protested against the Supreme Court seeking a lifelong ban on leaders who have been convicted for criminal image or crimes, contesting parliament or assembly elections, and remain in a political party. This again makes it clear that no government really wants election reform. Governments allow small reforms, but they are not in favor of making any significant reforms, because no political party is interested in it. It is also said that the election of many people of the criminal image in Bihar assembly elections.
For nearly twenty years the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has been demanding election reform. In the year 1999, when the ADR filed a PIL in the Delhi High Court that the candidates should tell about the criminal cases going on in their affidavits, it was strongly opposed by the Central Government. When the High Court ruled in favor of the petition, the government appealed against it in the Supreme Court. Nearly all political parties had united in favor of the government's appeal. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court said that it should be implemented to prevent the criminalization of politics. Then 22 parties unanimously decided in the all-party meeting that this decision of the Supreme Court will not be allowed to be implemented. The government prepared a bill to amend the Representation of the People Act so that the decision of the Supreme Court could not be implemented.
But the Parliament was dissolved before the amendment bill was introduced in Parliament. The government then sent the bill to the President in the form of an ordinance, which the President returned. The government sent that ordinance back, as a result, the president had to sign it. In this way, the Representation of the People Act was amended and the decision of the Supreme Court was repealed. The ADR then approached the Supreme Court, saying that the amendment to the Representation of the People Act is unconstitutional. After hearing this, in March 2013, the Supreme Court repealed the amendment to the Representation of People Act and said that the decision given earlier by the Supreme Court in this regard will exist. After that candidates started presenting affidavits related to criminal matters. That is, governments and political parties have no faith in transparency.
From the year 2003, ADR started publishing criminal cases mentioned in the affidavits submitted by the candidates. In 2004, 25 percent of the members of the Lok Sabha were those against whom criminal cases were going on. The number of such members increased to 30 percent in 2009 and 36 percent in 2014. About 43% of the MPs in the current Lok Sabha are of criminal image. An increasing number of MPs tainted by-election is a concern.
Regarding giving tickets to tainted leaders, political parties argue that it is the people who vote for them. But ADR believes that if political parties do not give tickets to such tainted leaders, then there will be no question of voters voting for them. Secondly, ADR also analyzes tainted or sensitive constituencies. Tainted or sensitive constituencies are considered to be areas where criminal cases are filed against three or more candidates, as in any constituency, usually, only three candidates are likely to win the election. In such a case, if there are criminal cases against all three, then the voters have a choice! The number of tainted or sensitive constituencies is also increasing now.
In the last Lok Sabha election, the number of such areas was 45 percent and in the just concluded Bihar election, the number of such areas was 89 percent. The Election Commission has also said that a person against whom criminal cases should be filed at least six months before the announcement of the election, and such cases, which have a sentence of at least five years, and the court have framed the charge, Then they should not be allowed to contest elections. This matter has been raised many times in the court, but the court says that it is the job of the legislature to make or change the law. The matter was also raised in the affidavit petition of the ADR, in which the ADR's counsel argued that there is a deficiency or a flaw in the law (gap in law), and Parliament did not have time to address it or bridge the gap. Or for some reason, she could not do so, and it causes loss of public interest, then the judiciary has the right and it is also her duty to remove the deficiency in the law. But the top court is not ready on this and the matter is stuck here.
Voters have been given the option of NOTA against criminal image leaders, but are not effective. The Supreme Court had said that if more and more people choose NOTA, then the parties will be forced to give tickets to good people. It should be for him that if nota get the maximum votes in an election, then no candidate should be declared elected from there. But according to the law that is in place now, if there are 2,000 voters in a region, out of which 1,999 voted for NOTA and one candidate for any candidate, then the candidate who gets one vote will win. Then it is the parties that campaign to choose NOTA is to spoil the vote. It is clear that political parties will not stop giving tickets to tainted people, nor will they allow any such law to be enacted.