In the current Lok Sabha, 162 out of 543 or an appalling 30% have serious criminal charges pending against them. BJP accounts for 42 and Congress 41. The charges involve murder, rape, kidnapping, extortion, forgery, dacoity, bribery and causing grievous injury with dangerous weapons. This is a travesty on the very concept of the legislative process in a democracy, not to mention the largest one in the world.
 
The good news is the ruling by the Supreme Court last month. The criminalization judgment on two PIL petitions filed in 2005, (one by Lily Thomas, an 85-year-old former advocate of the Supreme Court and another by an NGO called Lok Prahari through its General Secretary, S. N. Shukla, a retired IAS Officer) demanding the amendment made by the Legislature in the form of Sub-section (4) of Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act (R.P.Act) to be deemed illegal. And the Court has ruled that the Parliament had no power to enact Sub-section (4) declaring it ultra vires the Constitution.
 
What this means is that an MLA or MP who is convicted by a competent court for imprisonment in a criminal case will lose his/her seat from the date of conviction, and will not be able to contest in elections for six years even after the sentence is over, unless acquitted by a higher court on appeal. The amendment in the past had allowed convicted MLA's and MP's to continue to be legislators as well as contest in elections simply by filing an appeal to a higher court and getting endless continuances that made a mockery of Sub-sections (1), (2) and (3) of Section 8 of the R.P. Act of 1950 that prohibited convicted criminals from running for political office.
 
Undoubtedly, the judgment is a milestone in safeguarding the sanctity of the democratic process. Currently a convicted criminal is not eligible to vote, let alone run for office. Why should there be an exception as a privilege to a sitting member of the Legislature that is not available to a common citizen? This is particularly significant in light of the fact that in 2008, when the Congress-led government faced a close Confidence Vote, five legislators were temporarily freed from jail to participate.
 
To what extent this judgment has rattled the present politicians is hard to assess. Many are so used to circumnavigating the judicial and electoral process that much of what happens before the next general elections remains to be seen.
 
What are your thoughts?

Quickly, a) Convictions are hard to prove and harder to to withhold and b) this is "reacting" after the fact that the candidate becomes an MP or an MLA. There should be a proactive measure, like a set of strict eligibility guidelines for someone to even become an MP or an MLA. right now i think it is just that he or she has to be a citizen of india and under some age, 27?

Impedimenta wrote:Quickly, a) Convictions are hard to prove and harder to to withhold and b) this is "reacting" after the fact that the candidate becomes an MP or an MLA. There should be a proactive measure, like a set of strict eligibility guidelines for someone to even become an MP or an MLA. right now i think it is just that he or she has to be a citizen of india and under some age, 27?

At least the provision that a convicted felon of serious crimes covered under Section 8 is designed to prevent such an individual to run for political office. I think the age of eligibility is 25. The sad fact is it takes a lot of money and muscle power to win the elections which means that the rich criminals who are politicians perpetuate the problem.

Lots of 'should' and 'must do' thread...

It is a good thing that once a court has convicted you, you are no longer in power until you clear your name with an acquittal on appeal. I am all for innocent-until-proven-guilty, but once you are held guilty you are not fit to represent the people who elected you.

The problem with trying to do more on this count, by say preventing anyone with a serious charge against them from running, is that serious charges can be and are routinely made up by those have power or influence over the police.

Idéfix wrote:It is a good thing that once a court has convicted you, you are no longer in power until you clear your name with an acquittal on appeal. I am all for innocent-until-proven-guilty, but once you are held guilty you are not fit to represent the people who elected you.

The problem with trying to do more on this count, by say preventing anyone with a serious charge against them from running, is that serious charges can be and are routinely made up by those have power or influence over the police.

That is all the more reason for not having criminals in the political system. If someone in power trumps up charges against another, that in and of itself is a criminal offense punishable by law, so the chances are, if the judicial and electoral processes were to work in tandem, that someone will be convicted thus becoming ineligible to run or hold office later. In theory anyway.

Idéfix wrote:It is a good thing that once a court has convicted you, you are no longer in power until you clear your name with an acquittal on appeal. I am all for innocent-until-proven-guilty, but once you are held guilty you are not fit to represent the people who elected you.

The problem with trying to do more on this count, by say preventing anyone with a serious charge against them from running, is that serious charges can be and are routinely made up by those have power or influence over the police.

The key word is CONVICTION. Laloo case is in court since 95 and 83 Sikh riot case still in Court...movie stars convicted after 15 years and still stay out pending appeals. After every conviction of a politician, the sentence is immediately suspended pending appeal...and this goes on forever and ever... in the meantime they win election after election.

Govt has to spend on elections and EC should STRICTLY enforce elections laws on campaigning. and a whole lot of impractical laws.

Yeah, this move at least stops people who are convicted but have appeals pending. The bigger issue is the long delays in the criminal justice system. Stopping convicts from running while their appeals are pending will do a lot of good, if criminal cases are decided within a reasonable time frame. Now that India has the resources to build roads and metro rail lines, it should also invest in beefing up the courts so they can get through their case loads.

Idéfix wrote:Yeah, this move at least stops people who are convicted but have appeals pending. The bigger issue is the long delays in the criminal justice system. Stopping convicts from running while their appeals are pending will do a lot of good, if criminal cases are decided within a reasonable time frame. Now that India has the resources to build roads and metro rail lines, it should also invest in beefing up the courts so they can get through their case loads.

Not so fast...our honorable Parliamentarians are up in arms and want to enact a bill/law overruling the SC judgement..or even pass an amendment..

guess what...this is one amendment ALL politicians will be united in approving. Scumbags.

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Yeah, this move at least stops people who are convicted but have appeals pending. The bigger issue is the long delays in the criminal justice system. Stopping convicts from running while their appeals are pending will do a lot of good, if criminal cases are decided within a reasonable time frame. Now that India has the resources to build roads and metro rail lines, it should also invest in beefing up the courts so they can get through their case loads.

Not so fast...our honorable Parliamentarians are up in arms and want to enact a bill/law overruling the SC judgement..or even pass an amendment..

guess what...this is one amendment ALL politicians will be united in approving.  Scumbags.

Yes, the scumbags are spread evenly between BJP and Congress so, ironic as it seems, they'll be in coalition to make an amendment once again as they did with Sub-section (4). It took 8 years for SC to give the judgment on the PIL's of 2005 that challenged Sub-section (4) so why not do it again and buy time? After all, the Parliament enacts laws and the Judiciary only interprets them unless they utra vires the Constitution.

goodcitizn wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

Idéfix wrote:Yeah, this move at least stops people who are convicted but have appeals pending. The bigger issue is the long delays in the criminal justice system. Stopping convicts from running while their appeals are pending will do a lot of good, if criminal cases are decided within a reasonable time frame. Now that India has the resources to build roads and metro rail lines, it should also invest in beefing up the courts so they can get through their case loads.

Not so fast...our honorable Parliamentarians are up in arms and want to enact a bill/law overruling the SC judgement..or even pass an amendment..

guess what...this is one amendment ALL politicians will be united in approving.  Scumbags.

Yes, the scumbags are spread evenly between BJP and Congress so, ironic as it seems, they'll be in coalition to make an amendment once again as they did with Sub-section (4). It took 8 years for SC to give the judgment on the PIL's of 2005 that challenged Sub-section (4) so why not do it again and buy time? After all, the Parliament enacts laws and the Judiciary only interprets them unless they utra vires the Constitution.

There are so many ways these politicians can be controlled easily. But, the catch is any law to control them has to be passed by the scumbags themselves....

Isn't democracy great?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
There are so many ways these politicians can be controlled easily. But, the catch is any law to control them has to be passed by the scumbags themselves....
Isn't democracy great?

It is interesting that Samajwadi Party General Secretary stated that SC went beyond its powers and that they will certainly challenge the judgment. A DMK Party MP apparently stated that the Constitution itself was framed by those who were convicted and went to prison. That moron obviously disregards the fact that they fought for India's independence and were thrown in jail for that.

goodcitizn wrote:

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:
There are so many ways these politicians can be controlled easily. But, the catch is any law to control them has to be passed by the scumbags themselves....
Isn't democracy great?

It is interesting that Samajwadi Party General Secretary stated that SC went beyond its powers and that they will certainly challenge the judgment.

NEW DELHI: Samajwadi Party on Tuesday said it would rally political parties for amending the Constitution to annul the twin Supreme Court verdicts that legislators be disqualified automatically on conviction and those in jail be barred from contesting elections.

SP general secretary Ramgopal Yadav told TOI, "We will talk to political leaders for Parliament to amend the Constitution so that nobody can stop politicians from contesting elections."

While the two orders passed on July 10 have caused disquiet among the political class, SP is the first to have come out in the open to oppose them, setting the stage for an offensive against the judiciary in the monsoon session of Parliament, beginning August 5.

Yadav slammed the top court's "overreach". "There are discrepancies in these orders. These issues will be raised in Parliament, seeking amendment to the Constitution. I am sure the government will look into it after talking to all political parties," he argued.

"Besides having the mandate to frame laws, Parliament also has power to quash Supreme Court's judgments," he emphasized.

All parties have chaffed at the two orders, but have refrained from voicing their misgivings for fear of being seen as opposing "de-criminalization" of politics. With SP, which revels in defying pressures of political correctness, once again providing them the cover, others, including the government, may feel safe to speak out.

The Samajwadi leader said the court directive that an MP/MLA would stand disqualified the moment he was convicted by a court left open the issue of what would happen if the higher court overturned the conviction. Also, he warned that barring a person from contesting from jail would be used by regimes of the day to fix rivals during polls.

Attacking the apex court for exceeding its brief, Yadav said the judgment on disqualification, while striking down a clause in the Representation of People's Act that provides for three months to appeal a conviction, also said that Parliament cannot make a law on this issue.

"The Constitution gives Parliament the power to make laws. The court cannot make law or stop Parliament from making law. Else, it would mean the court is working as the third chamber of Parliament which is against the basic structure of the Constitution," he said.
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-16/india/40611325_1_parliament-apex-court-ramgopal-yadav

goodcitizn wrote:
[i]NEW DELHI: Samajwadi Party on Tuesday said it would rally political parties for amending the Constitution to annul the twin Supreme Court verdicts that legislators be disqualified automatically on conviction and those in jail be barred from contesting elections.

SP general secretary Ramgopal Yadav told TOI, "We will talk to political leaders for Parliament to amend the Constitution so that nobody can stop politicians from contesting elections."

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-16/india/40611325_1_parliament-apex-court-ramgopal-yadav

Did you know that thgis Ramgopal Yadav is a cousin of Mullahyam Yadav and a former professor of Physics?

Marathadi-Saamiyaar wrote:

goodcitizn wrote:
[i]NEW DELHI: Samajwadi Party on Tuesday said it would rally political parties for amending the Constitution to annul the twin Supreme Court verdicts that legislators be disqualified automatically on conviction and those in jail be barred from contesting elections.

SP general secretary Ramgopal Yadav told TOI, "We will talk to political leaders for Parliament to amend the Constitution so that nobody can stop politicians from contesting elections."

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-16/india/40611325_1_parliament-apex-court-ramgopal-yadav

Did you know that thgis Ramgopal Yadav is a cousin of Mullahyam Yadav and a former professor of Physics?

Mulayam must have every conceivable family member in his party and in governance. Much like Karunanidhi. The worst thing Nehru did was to cultivate nepocracy to the detriment of the country.

goodcitizn wrote:
Mulayam must have every conceivable family member in his party and in governance. Much like Karunanidhi. The worst thing Nehru did was to cultivate nepocracy to the detriment of the country.

It was not Nehru but Indira who cultivated the dynastic practices to our politicians. She became an I&B minister under Sastry. she was only assisting Nehru in a pvt capacity.