Supreme Court Directs Political Parties to Disclose Criminal Antecedents of Candidates: Rambabu Singh Thakur vs. Sunil Arora & Ors. (2020)

Date of the Judgment: 13 February 2020

Citation: [Not Available in Source]

Judges: Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat

Can the increasing criminalization of politics be curbed by making political parties more transparent about their candidates? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, addressed this critical question by issuing directions to political parties to disclose the criminal antecedents of their candidates. This judgment is a response to the alarming trend of increasing numbers of politicians with criminal records and a lack of transparency from political parties regarding their selection process. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice R.F. Nariman and Justice S. Ravindra Bhat.

Case Background

The case arose from a contempt petition highlighting the non-compliance with the Supreme Court’s earlier directions in Public Interest Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC 224. The court had previously directed that candidates must disclose their criminal records and political parties must publicize this information. However, the alarming trend of criminalization of politics continued, with a significant increase in the number of Members of Parliament (MPs) with pending criminal cases over the last four general elections.

Timeline

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court exercised its constitutional powers under Article 129 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India to issue the directions.

Article 129 of the Constitution of India grants the Supreme Court the power to punish for contempt of itself.

Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to pass any order necessary to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it.

Arguments

The contempt petition was filed due to the lack of compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Public Interest Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC 224. The petitioner argued that the increasing criminalization of politics was a serious issue and that the directions of the court were not being followed.

The Court noted that political parties were not explaining why candidates with criminal cases were being selected. It was also noted that the political parties were not disclosing the reasons for selecting such candidates over others without criminal antecedents.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not frame specific issues in this order. However, the core issue was the non-compliance with the previous directions of the Court regarding the disclosure of criminal antecedents of candidates by political parties, and the increasing criminalization of politics.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

Judgment

Authorities Viewed by the Court:

The Court referred to its earlier judgment in Public Interest Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC 224* and built upon the directions issued in that case.

The Court exercised its powers under Article 129 and Article 142 of the Constitution of India to issue the directions.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court was deeply concerned about the increasing criminalization of politics and the lack of transparency from political parties. The Court emphasized the need for citizens to be informed about the criminal background of candidates and for political parties to be accountable for their selection of candidates. The Court was of the view that the directions issued in Public Interest Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC 224 were not being followed effectively and that further directions were needed to ensure compliance.

The Court’s reasoning was driven by the need to ensure transparency and accountability in the electoral process. The Court emphasized that the increasing criminalization of politics was a serious issue and that political parties had a responsibility to be transparent about their candidates. The Court also noted that the directions issued in Public Interest Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC 224 were not being followed effectively and that further directions were needed to ensure compliance.

The Court did not discuss any alternative interpretations. The final decision was reached based on the need to ensure transparency and accountability in the electoral process and to curb the increasing criminalization of politics.

The decision was made to ensure that citizens are well-informed about the criminal background of candidates and that political parties are accountable for their selection of candidates.

The reasons for the decision are:

• The increasing criminalization of politics.
• The lack of transparency from political parties.
• The need for citizens to be informed about the criminal background of candidates.
• The need for political parties to be accountable for their selection of candidates.
• The non-compliance with the directions issued in Public Interest Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC 224.

“In this judgment, this Court was cognisant of the increasing criminalisation of politics in India and the lack of information about such criminalisation amongst the citizenry.”

“We have also noted that the political parties offer no explanation as to why candidates with pending criminal cases are selected as candidates in the first place.”

“The reasons as to selection shall be with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere “winnability” at the polls.”

There were no majority or minority opinions in this case.

Key Takeaways

• Political parties must upload detailed information about candidates with pending criminal cases on their websites.
• Political parties must disclose the reasons for selecting candidates with criminal antecedents, emphasizing merit over “winnability.”
• This information must be published in local and national newspapers, as well as on social media platforms.
• Political parties must submit a compliance report to the Election Commission within 72 hours of candidate selection.
• Non-compliance will be treated as contempt of court.

This judgment is likely to have a significant impact on future elections by increasing transparency and accountability in the selection of candidates. It also serves as a reminder to political parties that they must be transparent about their candidates and that the public has a right to know about the criminal background of those who seek to represent them.

Directions

The Supreme Court issued the following directions:

1. It shall be mandatory for political parties to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases who have been selected as candidates, along with the reasons for such selection, and as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates.
2. The reasons as to selection shall be with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere “winnability” at the polls.
3. This information shall also be published in one local vernacular newspaper and one national newspaper, and on the official social media platforms of the political party.
4. These details shall be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or not less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.
5. The political party concerned shall then submit a report of compliance with these directions with the Election Commission within 72 hours of the selection of the said candidate.
6. If a political party fails to submit such compliance report with the Election Commission, the Election Commission shall bring such non-compliance by the political party concerned to the notice of the Supreme Court as being in contempt of this Court’s orders/directions.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that political parties must be transparent about the criminal background of their candidates and must disclose the reasons for selecting candidates with criminal antecedents. This case builds upon the earlier directions issued in Public Interest Foundation and Ors. v. Union of India and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC 224 and further strengthens the legal framework for ensuring transparency in the electoral process.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment in Rambabu Singh Thakur vs. Sunil Arora & Ors. is a significant step towards curbing the criminalization of politics in India. By mandating political parties to disclose the criminal antecedents of their candidates and the reasons for their selection, the Court has ensured greater transparency and accountability in the electoral process. This judgment reinforces the importance of an informed electorate and aims to reduce the influence of criminals in politics.