The declaration of assets, liabilities and pending criminal charges may not have come in the way of political parties fielding tainted candidates or those who seem to be curiously quadrupling their riches after being elected. The wide dissemination of such information among voters has had no effect on voting behaviour: After all, what is there to choose between candidate A and B, except a question of degree? Yet, discerning citizens try occasionally.
A PIL has now led to the Centre proposing a scheme to set up 12 special trial courts for speedy disposal of long-pending cases. A conviction ensures a politician is barred from contesting elections for the next six years—as has happened, most famously, with RJD chief Lalu Prasad Yadav. That there are no less than 1,581 criminal cases pending against MPs and MLAs—India’s elected lawmakers—is in itself a pointer to a deep systemic rot.
A two-judge Bench of the Supreme Court has ruled in the affirmative on the Centre’s proposal and directed that Rs 7.8 crore be released so that such special courts can start operating from March 2018—the states and high courts are to chip in to make the required infrastructure available. The apex court expects these courts to resolve at least 100 cases a year to clear the backlog. Equally significantly, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition that seeks to put a life ban on convicted politicians from contesting elections.
True, no formal deterrent has proved strong enough till now for political parties, nor has the impotent rage of the middle class or opinion-makers. However, a life-ban would go against the basic principle of reformation that lies at the basis of our criminal justice system. And what if the courts put a spanner in the way of tainted politicians heading political parties? Sounds good on paper. But with conviction rates being what they are, it may only end up being misused to keep political opponents out of the fray and become a way of nixing political careers.