Strengthen your UPSC exam preparation with daily IAS and UPSC current affairs

Recent Developments:

• The Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) examining the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 is expected to adopt its report shortly before the Bill is taken up for further parliamentary consideration.
• Reports indicate that the JPC may retain the proposed 30-day custody provision while recommending safeguards against possible political misuse.

Background:

• Criminalisation of politics refers to the increasing participation and election of individuals with criminal backgrounds in legislatures.
• The Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025 seeks to introduce prolonged judicial custody, instead of conviction, as a constitutional ground for vacating ministerial office.
• The proposal has triggered debate over the balance between political accountability, constitutional morality, and the presumption of innocence.

Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025:

• The Bill was introduced in 2025 and later referred to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) after extensive parliamentary opposition.
• The Bill proposes amendments to Articles 75, 164 and 239AA relating to the tenure of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers and Ministers.
• A Minister would vacate office if:
• The Minister is accused of an offence punishable with five years or more imprisonment.
• The Minister remains under continuous judicial custody for 30 consecutive days.
• If the Prime Minister or a Chief Minister remains in custody for 30 consecutive days, resignation becomes mandatory, failing which office automatically ceases on the 31st day.
• The President or Governor may remove a Minister on the advice of the Prime Minister or Chief Minister, respectively, or removal occurs automatically after the prescribed period.
• Similar legislative proposals have also been introduced for Delhi, Jammu & Kashmir and Puducherry.

Present Constitutional Position:

• Ministers presently leave office through:
• Resignation.
• Dismissal by the Prime Minister or Chief Minister.
• Disqualification after conviction under the Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA) or constitutional provisions.
• The Constitution does not presently treat arrest or detention as a ground for removal from ministerial office.

Objectives of the Bill:

• Strengthen integrity of public office.
• Enhance public confidence in executive institutions.
• Prevent individuals facing serious criminal proceedings from continuing in executive positions for prolonged periods.
• Promote ethical governance and greater political accountability.

Major Constitutional Issues:

• The proposal links removal from office with custody instead of conviction, raising concerns regarding the presumption of innocence.
• Critics argue that investigative agencies could be misused for political vendetta.
• The Bill raises questions relating to the Basic Structure Doctrine, particularly:
• Democracy.
• Federalism.
• Rule of Law.
• Natural Justice.
• The proposal also revives the debate between constitutional morality and individual legal rights.

Criminalisation of Politics:

• Criminalisation of politics refers to the increasing election of individuals with pending criminal cases or criminal backgrounds.
• A serious criminal offence generally includes:
• Offences carrying a maximum punishment of five years or more.
• Non-bailable offences.

Status in India:

• The share of Lok Sabha MPs facing serious criminal cases increased from 14% (2009) to 31% (2024).
• Around 29% of MLAs elected in 2024 faced serious criminal cases, amounting to over 1,200 legislators.
• Andhra Pradesh recorded the highest proportion (56%) of such MLAs, followed by Telangana (50%).

Reasons for Criminalisation of Politics:

• Weak disqualification framework, the RPA, 1951 generally disqualifies candidates only after conviction, while criminal trials often continue for several years.
• Money power and muscle power make influential candidates electorally attractive.
• Identity-based voting frequently overshadows candidates' criminal backgrounds.
• Political parties prioritise electoral winnability over ethical considerations.
• Judicial delays and repeated adjournments enable prolonged participation in elections.

Impact of Criminalisation of Politics:

• Weakens representative democracy by limiting voters' genuine electoral choices.
• Promotes corruption, voter intimidation, electoral violence, booth capturing and the use of illicit funds.
• Reduces public trust in democratic institutions and electoral processes.
• Distorts policy-making by protecting criminal networks instead of advancing public welfare.
• Weakens governance quality and administrative accountability.

Existing Legal Framework:

• Representation of the People Act, 1951
• Provides disqualification mainly after conviction for specified offences.
• Prescribes additional disqualifications for corrupt practices and certain electoral violations.
• Articles 102 and 191
• Lay down constitutional grounds for disqualification of Members of Parliament and State Legislatures.
• Articles 75 and 164
• Govern appointment and tenure of Union and State Ministers.
• Tenth Schedule
• Provides disqualification on grounds of defection.

Key Committee Recommendations:

• Indrajit Gupta Committee (1998), Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2007)
• Recommended partial State funding of elections to reduce dependence on black money.
• National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (2002)
• Recommended statutory audit of political party accounts.
• Recommended mandatory disclosure of candidates' assets and liabilities.
• Law Commission of India (244th Report, 2014)
• Recommended disqualification once charges are framed for offences punishable with five years or more.
• Recommended Fast-Track Courts for trials involving sitting MPs and MLAs.

Supreme Court Judgments:

• Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013)
• Immediate disqualification upon conviction carrying two years or more imprisonment.
• Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018)
• Political parties must publicise criminal antecedents of candidates.
• Supreme Court Order (2020)
• Political parties must publish criminal records of selected candidates on:
• Official websites.
• Social media platforms.
• Newspapers.
• Parties must also explain reasons for selecting candidates with pending criminal cases.

Challenges in Addressing Criminalisation:

• Slow investigation and prolonged trials.
• Weak internal democracy within political parties.
• Opaque political funding.
• Low electoral literacy.
• Limited deterrence before conviction.
• Balancing individual rights with public interest remains constitutionally complex.

Way Forward:

• Ensure time-bound disposal of criminal cases involving legislators through dedicated Fast-Track Courts.
• Increase transparency in political funding and strengthen financial disclosures.
• Strengthen internal democracy within political parties.
• Improve voter awareness regarding criminal antecedents of candidates.
• Introduce carefully designed reforms that uphold constitutional morality without compromising due process or natural justice.
• Balance electoral integrity with the presumption of innocence through constitutionally sustainable safeguards.

Value Addition for UPSC:

Important Constitutional Articles:

• Article 75 – Appointment and tenure of Union Ministers.
• Article 164 – Appointment and tenure of State Ministers.
• Article 102 – Disqualification of Members of Parliament.
• Article 191 – Disqualification of Members of State Legislatures.
• Article 239AA – Special provisions relating to the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
• Tenth Schedule – Anti-defection provisions