A mature and well informed electorate is the best antidote for shielding the democratic polity from criminal elements. Although the Supreme Court ruling of ADR vs. Union of India in 2002 has provided the enabling environment for the electorate to make informed choices during elections, proportion of serving legislators with pending criminal cases continues to remain at disturbingly high levels.

The civil society movement [Please see “PIF’s No Criminals” Campaign] to influence the electorate to vote against candidates with criminal track records is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a stable, decriminalized democratic polity. The legislative and administrative framework for constituting the democratic polity is also partially to blame. For instance, in many cases, the electorate does not have a choice since most of the contesting candidates have criminal backgrounds. The ‘first past the vote’ system also does not necessarily throw up the most representative candidate at the constituency level. Finally, criminal cases remain pending while the legislators complete their tenures and even get re-elected. Therefore, lobbying and advocacy efforts focused on amending the legislative, legal and administrative framework must be strenuously pursued. Public Interest Foundation is deeply concerned about the growing criminal presence in legislative bodies. Ensuring the purity of the political process in the country has been a core concern of the Public Interest Foundation. The Foundation has joined hands with like-minded organizations to sensitize the citizen on the danger from increasing criminalization in Indian polity.One section of civil society has advocated that the law need to be amended such that candidates with Track record of criminal cases are debarred from contesting elections. The Parliamentary Standing Committee in 2007 did not favour this view. Public Interest Foundation is strongly of the view that fast tracking of criminal cases against MPs and State Legislatures offers a first step solution to the problems of criminalization of politics. It does not entail any amendment to the electoral law, for which a legislative initiative based on political consensus would be needed. This explains the choice of pragmatic solution by PIF.The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel, Public Grievances, Law & Justice in its 18^th Report on Electoral Reforms had also commended suggestions received in this context in Para 31 & 32 of the Report as below:Quote “Para 31: During the examination of the proposal under reference some very good suggestions were given by the members of the Committee which are as follows:-(i) if a charge sheet in a criminal case is framed in a Court of law against a political person the case should stand transferred to a Fast Track Court with the mandate that the case be decided at the earliest but within a period of six months. For that sittings of the said Fast Track Court should be held on day-to-day basis till the case is finally disposed off.(ii) in order to give effect to the said provision the Code of Criminal Procedure may be amended suitably.(iii) special Election courts may be established to decide election related matters including the proposal examined by the Committee.Para 32: The Committee hopes that the Government will also take into consideration the above referred suggestions at the drafting stage of the proposed Bill.”Unquote Public Interest Foundation along with Common Cause has requested the Ministry of Law, Govt. of India that criminal cases against legislatures which fall within the ambit with subsection 8(1), 8(2), 8(3) of the RPA as well as the appeals and revisions referred to in subsection 8(4) thereof should be accorded the highest priority & disposed off within a time frame of six months. As regard new criminal cases instituted against MPs and MLAs the period of six months may be reckoned from the date of taking cognizance by the courts. PIF further suggested that Law Ministry may take the initiative for laying down strict guidelines & timelines for various processes intervening between the stages of taking of cognizance by the courts to the delivery of judgments particularly in regard to processes susceptible to manipulation by the accused as well as processes where negligence by the prosecution court staff can lead to significant delay. PIF along with common Cause have also suggested to Ministry of Law & Justice amendment to section 8(4) of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951. It was suggested by the two organizations to do away with the automaticity of the exception under sub-section 8 (4) by providing that the suspension of the disqualification under sub-sections 8(1), 8(2) and 8(3) shall take place only in the event of a court of competent jurisdiction granting a stay against the order of conviction within a 3 month window from the date of conviction. This amendment will make it incumbent on a convicted legislator to establish to the satisfaction of the court that there is a sufficient cause for suspending the disqualification envisaged under sub-section 8(1), 8(2) or 8(3) of the RPA, as the case may be. It will thus complement the measure of fast-tracking of criminal cases against legislators and help achieve the objective of minimizing the influence of criminals in our legislatures.Fast –tracking of pending cases against serving legislators will have a tangible and immediate outcome – convicted legislators will relinquish membership to the legislature as per provisions of Section 8 of RPA, 1951 while acquitted legislators can redeem their honourable reputations. Such a move will also discourage those with criminal pending cases from contesting elections lest they be convicted through the fast tracking procedure. The fast tracking procedure will also restore the confidence of the people in the administration of the criminal justice system and restore the sanctity and majesty of the legislative bodies.Thus, in the long run, the simple expedient of fast tracking pending criminal cases against sitting legislators can go a long way in diminishing the influence of criminal elements in our democratic polity.COPY OF LETTER FORWARDED TO MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE 1. Letter sent on 26^th May, 2010 2. Letter sent on 1^st June 2010 3. Reply from the Law Minister