Let us watch the naked ‘dance of democracy’ in our country from close quarters. There are around 2,000 cases involving MPs and MLAs pending in courts across the country. Out of a total of 543 seats of Parliamentarians in the Lok Sabha, 162 or 30 per cent have declared criminal cases against them numbering 306 IPC in all. 76 MPs of Lok Sabha are facing serious criminal charges like murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping and robbery. Maximum number of IPC cases viz. 69, is against the MPs from JMM, of Jharkhand alone. Its one MP, namely Kameshwar Baitha from Palamu has 69 counts of serious IPC cases against him of which 10 cases of murder have been pending for about 12 years, says a report of the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and National Election Watch (NEW), According to the report, 24 MPs who were facing criminal cases in 2004 were re-elected in 2009.
Of 162 indicted parliamentarians there are as many as 30 who have a total of 58 serious criminal cases pending against them for 10 years or more.
Of them, there are five who have declared a total of 14 cases of murder which have been pending for 10 years or more says the report which, according to its authors is based on the analysis of affidavits of the MPs filed in 2009 parliamentary election. Party-wise analysis of criminal cases is as this: MPs of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha (JMM) 69 serious IPC counts, BJP 55 serious IPC counts, SP 34 serious IPC counts and Congress 30 serious IPC counts. Average number of years for which these cases have been pending is seven.
These revelations have come to light when a Public Interest Litigation case filed by NGO ‘Public Interest Foundation’ was heard by the Divisional Bench of the Supreme Court of India in New Delhi. The petitioners had sought intervention of the court in forestalling re-election of the parliamentarians against whom criminal cases are pending in the court of law. They had invoked the Representation of the People Act which stipulates that a lawmaker, if held guilty of crimes specified under the Act will be disqualified immediately whereas an acquittal would ensure that all doubts about his continuance are put to rest, according to the court.
Realising the gravity of giving leeway to criminals to come back to the Parliament even when the albatross of criminal charges continues to hang around their necks, the Divisional Bench of the Supreme Court ordered some concrete measures to be taken by the Government that would prevent the criminals from returning to the Parliament without having me with the consequence of their crimes if established by a court of law. The Bench has ordered the trial courts to decide such cases of alleged crimes by the elected representatives of the people as early as possible but not beyond one year. Justice is to be done in either way. If the crime against the accused is established, he should get the punishment according to law. But if he is not found guilty and is exonerated, justice is done to him as a citizen of India. Existing law says that a candidate can contest elections while being tried. Indirectly the court expressed its apprehension that a representative with charges of crime enjoys the right to be re-elected because the judgement in his case is dragged on indefinitely. This had to be plugged and this was the main purpose behind issuing the judgement in the PIL case.
The Bench has also ordered some auxiliary decisions that would strengthen dispensation of justice. It has ordered that in these cases the trial courts should hold daily sessions to ensure speedy prosecution of criminal cases against the lawmakers. The Bench has also provided for extending the trial beyond one year but only owing to “special reasons” which have to be reported to the Chief Justice of the State High Court who will be the final authority to allow the trial beyond one year or not.
The question is with one third of the existing Lok Sabha filled by criminals against whom charges of grave crimes like murder, kidnapping etc. are pending in the courts of law, what type of humane legislation we can expect to be provided for the good of the people of India. Does it not ask that we make some introspection on the question of what mockery of democracy we have made.
We highly appreciate the historical order issued by the Bench that will go a long way in stonewalling the entry of criminals in the name of representatives of people enter the sacred portals of the Indian Parliament. In issuing this judgment, the Court has kept in mind the spirit and sanctity of the Representation of the People Act. The Bench did take into consideration the recommendation of the Law Commission saying that MPs and MLAs, charged by the trial court with crimes entailing more than five years’ jail term, should be disqualified. But it was reluctant in endorsing this suggestion because it felt that a decision to that effect fell in the domain of legislature and the court had no intention of encroaching on its jurisdiction.
In its historic verdict, the Bench called upon the government to provide adequate funds for making available the necessary judicial infrastructure that needs to be expanded to speed up the trial of criminal cases against the elected representatives.
In final analysis, this is a landmark judgment in the sense that the executive had failed in checking the entry of lawmakers with criminal antecedents to the Parliament. Political leadership was partly handicapped by political compulsions and partly by lack of will to purge the Parliament of criminal elements. With the verdict of the court, it has found teeth to the existing laws. This judgement leaves very little scope for politicians to manoeuvre entry of tainted representatives to the portals of the Parliament. It is a great day for the people of India and significant victory of Indian democracy against its detractors.
Trending Now
E-Paper
Follow our WhatsApp channel