<p>The Supreme Court did well to impose fines on eight political parties ranging from the Left to the Right for not complying with its order to publish the list of their candidates who had criminal backgrounds at least two weeks before they were to file their nominations. The directive had been issued in September 2020 and many elections have taken place after that but parties largely ignored the order. The NCP and the CPM were fined Rs 5 lakh each and the BJP and the Congress Rs 1 lakh each. The court said it took a lenient view and kept the quantum of penalties low because this was the first such instance of violation. The first election that took place after the court's order was issued was in Bihar. Four states and a Union Territory went to the polls early this year. No party honoured the order, and the Election Commission of India (ECI) did not penalise them for their failure.</p>.<p>Voters have the right to know whether the candidates who contest elections have a criminal background or not. Political parties tend to conceal the information from the public because they think that it would adversely affect the candidates’ winning chances. The court had asked the parties not only to publish the details of the cases pending against their candidates but also to give reasons why they selected such candidates instead of those with a clean record. But more than 2,500 MLAs and MPs, including ministers, faced criminal charges, according to estimates made at the end of last year. At least in 174 cases, the offences were punishable with imprisonment for life. The court has called for a "major surgery to weed out the malignancy of criminalisation in politics" and its order was part of that effort.</p>.<p>The court has tried to go beyond issuing orders. It has told the Election Commission to use the money collected from the fines to create a mechanism for an "extensive awareness campaign to make every voter aware about his right to know and the availability of information regarding the criminal antecedents of all contesting candidates" and to set up mobile applications containing such information. The Commission has also been told to create a separate cell to monitor compliance with the court’s order by parties and to bring instances of violation to the court’s notice. Since the nexus between crime and politics is deeply entrenched, it is anybody's guess whether these steps will make any serious impact. But they will have served some purpose even if they help to keep some criminals out of electoral contests. It has been pointed out that the Election Commission can do more than what it has done in the past in this respect.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court did well to impose fines on eight political parties ranging from the Left to the Right for not complying with its order to publish the list of their candidates who had criminal backgrounds at least two weeks before they were to file their nominations. The directive had been issued in September 2020 and many elections have taken place after that but parties largely ignored the order. The NCP and the CPM were fined Rs 5 lakh each and the BJP and the Congress Rs 1 lakh each. The court said it took a lenient view and kept the quantum of penalties low because this was the first such instance of violation. The first election that took place after the court's order was issued was in Bihar. Four states and a Union Territory went to the polls early this year. No party honoured the order, and the Election Commission of India (ECI) did not penalise them for their failure.</p>.<p>Voters have the right to know whether the candidates who contest elections have a criminal background or not. Political parties tend to conceal the information from the public because they think that it would adversely affect the candidates’ winning chances. The court had asked the parties not only to publish the details of the cases pending against their candidates but also to give reasons why they selected such candidates instead of those with a clean record. But more than 2,500 MLAs and MPs, including ministers, faced criminal charges, according to estimates made at the end of last year. At least in 174 cases, the offences were punishable with imprisonment for life. The court has called for a "major surgery to weed out the malignancy of criminalisation in politics" and its order was part of that effort.</p>.<p>The court has tried to go beyond issuing orders. It has told the Election Commission to use the money collected from the fines to create a mechanism for an "extensive awareness campaign to make every voter aware about his right to know and the availability of information regarding the criminal antecedents of all contesting candidates" and to set up mobile applications containing such information. The Commission has also been told to create a separate cell to monitor compliance with the court’s order by parties and to bring instances of violation to the court’s notice. Since the nexus between crime and politics is deeply entrenched, it is anybody's guess whether these steps will make any serious impact. But they will have served some purpose even if they help to keep some criminals out of electoral contests. It has been pointed out that the Election Commission can do more than what it has done in the past in this respect.</p>
