Tainted politicians

THE Central Government has rightly told the Supreme Court that it’s the prerogative of Parliament to consider whether convicted politicians should be banned from contesting elections for the remainder of their life. The Centre is not keen on a blanket ban and has opposed a plea challenging the constitutional validity of certain provisions of the Representation of the People Act. Under this law, a convicted neta is immediately disqualified and also barred from contesting polls for six years, starting from the date of completion of sentence. Subsequently, he/she becomes eligible for entering the poll fray. But is the six-year gap a potent deterrent? Should it be longer, if not lifelong? Various political parties are reluctant to discuss this contentious matter inside or outside Parliament for an obvious reason — they all have tainted leaders in their ranks. The bitter reality is that criminalisation of politics is par for the course.

Of the 70 newly elected MLAs of Delhi, 31 have criminal cases against them — 16 are from the BJP and the rest from AAP. Both parties had no qualms about giving them the coveted ticket, apparently because their ‘winnability’ was the decisive factor, not their probity (or lack of it). It’s true that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty, but what stops a political party from preferring someone with a spotless record to one whose name figures in FIRs? And how can voters ascertain the truth about candidates’ credentials? They simply can’t — it’s the job of prosecutors and courts to do the needful, and that too in a time-bound manner.

The trial in cases against sitting/former MPs and MLAs often drags on for years or even decades. The protracted litigation allows them to contest one election after another. Fast-tracking of these cases can go a long way in weeding out the black sheep and preventing them from vitiating the electoral process. Political outfits can do their bit by initiating much-needed self-regulation.