Wrists fit for handcuffs
By amending the Representation of People Act, the government would be directly going against the Supreme Court’s attempt to decriminalise Indian politics
Today is Raksha Bandhan, and Mother India seems to have found a ‘rakhi’ brother. To hold and love forever. To be held and protected forever. Mother India seems all set to tie the ‘rakhi on a wrist fit for handcuffs.
It appears that the Government of India has taken the first step to amend the Representation of People Act (RPA) so that criminal legislators can remain in Parliament or in state legislative Assemblies defying a Supreme Court ruling. In a landmark judgment on July 10, 2013, the Supreme Court had ruled that MPs and MLAs convicted in a crime would be disqualified from the House from the very date of their conviction in a trial court. The court had also barred convicted politicians from contesting polls.
This was too much for our noble ‘netas.’ They quickly raised a racket and scurried across party lines to come together to protest a judgment so unfair. The supremacy of Parliament must be maintained, they said. And now the government seems to have moved a cabinet note to amend the RPA with retrospective effect – it would be in effect from July 10, the day the Supreme Court had passed the order. So that the convicted MP or MLA could continue as a legislator as long as his appeal was pending in court.
Sure, the right of convicted criminals to rule over us must be honoured. The right of lawbreakers to be lawmakers must indeed be protected. How else can we ensure the smooth functioning of our curious democracy? Mother India has good reason to tie a ‘rakhi’ on her criminal brother – where might is right, only robust criminals can keep a robust democracy in place.
By amending the RPA, the government would be directly going against the Supreme Court’s attempt to decriminalise Indian politics. It is odd that no political party sees a problem with this. All our wonderful netas, who keep stalling Parliament demanding an end to corruption, see nothing shameful in this. The grand old party leading the UPA government that has been harping on the ills of corruption and claiming to lead the drive against it sees nothing embarrassing in this. For once there is unanimity – all our netas at every level, every political party and every corner of India seem to agree that we need convicted criminals in Parliament and state Assemblies.
Perhaps that is true. Going by their own admission in pre-election declarations, a third of our legislators have criminal charges against them. We elect them, and are resigned to be ruled by murderers, rapists, dacoits, thieves, goons and crooks of all kinds. Practically all our political parties field candidates with criminal links. It is their brutal muscle power that drives the engine of our democracy.
So the Supreme Court’s judgment disqualifying tainted legislators from the House, irrespective of whether their appeal was pending, was a big step towards saving democracy from brazen goondaism. Especially since netas have no trouble getting their cases delayed for decades if need be. The slow, avuncular justice system cannot cope with the overload. So it is easy for criminals to go unpunished, especially if they have political connections. The best way to avoid jail even for terrifying criminals is to become a lawmaker.
A quick look at figures may be sobering. Reportedly, of the 4,835 MPs and MLAs in India, 1,448 have officially declared criminal charges against them. Of these 1,448 tainted legislators, 641 – ie almost half – are charged with murder, rape, kidnapping and other grave offences.
Since the 1990s, the Election Commission has been proposing to bar historysheeters and tainted netas from contesting polls. No political party has had the guts to allow it. The EC had also suggested that anyone who had a case in court, which could send him to jail for five years or more, should be disqualified from contesting elections even when the trial was pending. This would weed out candidates charged with a particularly grave offence, like murder or rape. The lawmakers would not allow this either.
This week, the Supreme Court has taken up the issue again. On Monday it gave a final chance to the government to explain what it intends to do regarding the EC’s recommendation “to consider disqualification of persons in cases where charges concerning heinous offences have been framed by the court”. The court had been requested to frame guidelines for the decriminalisation of politics by the Public Interest Foundation, a voluntary organisation, which it found difficult to do given the government’s lack of response. The fact is, we have been talking about decriminalising politics for ages. Years ago, President K R Narayanan had pointed out that the solution was simple: political parties just needed to stop fielding candidates with a criminal background. Would this be too much to expect from political parties, he had appealed. It was too much to ask then, and it is too much to even consider right now. Instead, our government, with the full support of the opposition parties, will move heaven and earth, defy the Supreme Court and the Election Commission and change laws to keep criminals embedded in the political power play.
The problem is, criminalisation of politics may not be effectively reduced even if dreadful criminals are kept out of Parliament and state assemblies by law. The criminal does not need a high profile seat in the House, he may be more comfortable just being a muscleman kingmaker. Or a player from the wings, someone who effortlessly controls our lives as we are ruled by the wives, sons, daughters and nephews of criminals.
However, keeping criminals out of the House, and public office, would still be a good step towards cleaning up our political stables. But it would need support outside of the political arena as well. For proper decriminalisation we need a proper justice system. We need to see criminals punished, not merely charged. We need courts to function more efficiently.
We need a less political media. And we need political will.