The top court’s push for clean politics
Hindustan TimesCiting the “legislative architecture” of the country, the Union government on Monday submitted in the Supreme Court that it would not be prudent or legally feasible to debar those against whom serious penal charges have been framed by trial courts from contesting elections. The Centre’s objections against keeping criminally tainted candidates out of the electoral fray have come more than four years after the Supreme Court said that “a time has come that the Parliament must make law to ensure that persons facing serious criminal cases do not enter into the political stream.” Two years ago, the Supreme Court again made an “appeal to the conscience of the lawmakers hoping that they will wake up soon and carry out a major surgery for weeding out the malignancy of criminalisation in politics,” which, it added, was “growing day by day.” The top court is currently seized of a PIL by advocate Ashwini Upadhyay, who has relied on a host of reports of the Law Commission and Election Commission of India on the aspect of decriminalising politics. Dr Rajendra Prasad, before putting the motion for passing of the Constitution on the floor of the Constituent Assembly on November 26, 1949, had said: “It requires men of strong character, men of vision, men who will not sacrifice the interests of the country at large for the sake of smaller groups and areas.We can only hope that the country will throw up such men in abundance.” Underlining the importance of free and fair election, the Supreme Court in Mohinder Singh Gill Vs Chief Election Commissioner held that democracy is government by the people wherein “the little man, in his multitude, marking his vote at the poll does a social audit of his Parliament plus political choice of this proxy.” The Dinesh Goswami Committee on Electoral Reforms in 1990 acknowledged the need for a crackdown on money and muscle power in polls. In Anukul Chandra Pradhan, Advocate Supreme Court Vs Union of India and others, the top court approved of the election laws that sought to exclude persons with criminal background from the election scene as candidates and voters, noting the object is to prevent criminalisation of politics and maintain propriety in elections. Generally speaking, the purpose sought to be achieved by enacting disqualification on conviction for certain offences is to prevent persons with criminal background from entering into politics and the house — a powerful wing of governance,” the Supreme Court held in Prabhakaran Vs P Jayarajan in the context of enacting disqualification under Section 8 of the RPA.
History of this topic
Candidates With Criminal Cases Had More Success Rate In 2019 Lok Sabha Elections : Amicus Report In Supreme Court
Live Law
Letters to The Editor
The Hindu
‘Public Interest Or Political Interest Litigation?’: Calcutta High Court In Plea For FIRs Against Suvendu Adhikari Over Panchayat Election Comments
Live Law
Supreme Court Adjourns Hearing Of Plea Seeking Ban On Convicted Persons From Forming Political Party Till August
Live Law
Morning Digest | Centre’s silence on judicial postings condemnable, says SC; Himachal Pradesh all set to vote today
The Hindu
Supreme Court Issues Notice On PIL To Debar Persons Against Whom Charges Have Been Framed In Serious Offences From Elections
Live Law
De-Register Political Parties Which Fail To Publish Candidates' Criminal Antecedents : PIL Before Supreme Court
Live Law)
Decriminalisation of Indian politics: Supreme Court says political parties refusing to wake up from 'deep slumber'
Firstpost![Why Central Govt. Not Enacted Law To Prohibit Candidates With Criminal Backgrounds From Contesting Elections, As Observed By SC?: Asks Madras HC [Read Order]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2020/07/24/378816-madras-high-court.jpg)
Why Central Govt. Not Enacted Law To Prohibit Candidates With Criminal Backgrounds From Contesting Elections, As Observed By SC?: Asks Madras HC [Read Order]
Live LawDiscover Related
![100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2024 - Part 2 [26-50]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/12/18/577182-100-important-judgments-of-2024-part-2.jpg)
![[S.152 BNS] Sedition Law Is A Shield For National Security, Not A Sword Against Political Dissent: Rajasthan High Court](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/06/07/543650-justice-arun-monga-rajasthan-hc.jpg)
![100 Important Supreme Court Judgments Of 2024 - Part 1 [1-25]](https://www.livelaw.in/h-upload/2024/12/18/577180-100-important-judgments-of-2024.jpg)
