Girdhari Lal Raina
Criminalisation of politics is one of the most pressing challenges confronting Indian democracy. Despite seven decades of constitutional democracy, regular elections, and strong institutions, the political system has been unable to insulate itself from the steady entry of individuals with criminal backgrounds. The problem is not new, but its scale and persistence have reached alarming levels. Unless addressed decisively, it risks corroding the moral foundation of public life and eroding the credibility of democratic institutions.
What began as stray aberrations has now assumed the proportions of a systemic rot. Nearly half of today’s lawmakers in Parliament face criminal cases-some accused of heinous crimes such as murder, rape, and kidnapping. The cancer of criminalisation has spread so deeply that it threatens to hollow out the very credibility of India’s democratic institutions.
It is against this troubling backdrop that the Constitution (One Hundred and Thirtieth Amendment) Bill, 2025 was introduced in the Lok Sabha on August 20. The Bill is not just another legislative proposal-it is an attempt to reassert moral clarity in politics. . It is a long-overdue attempt to draw a line of moral accountability in politics.
It stipulates that Prime Ministers, Chief Ministers, and Ministers must vacate office if arrested and detained for serious offences carrying a minimum punishment of five years. They can return once released or acquitted, but the message is clear: governments cannot and must not be run from prison cells.
This is not vendetta politics; it is constitutional morality. It is about drawing a civilisational red line-those entrusted to make laws must not simultaneously live under the shadow of breaking them.
Yet, ironically, this move has triggered sharp opposition from sections of the political spectrum. The divergence reflects not just differences in policy but a deeper unwillingness among many to break the nexus between power and impunity.
The Normalisation of Criminal Politics
The statistics are chilling. In 2009, 30% of MPs had criminal cases pending. By 2014, the figure rose to 34%. In 2019, 43% of MPs (233 members) faced charges, with 29% accused of serious crimes. The 2024 Lok Sabha set a new record: 46% of winning candidates declared criminal cases, including 170 charged with grave offences.
The story at the state level is even bleaker. In some assemblies, more than half of the legislators face pending criminal cases. Democracy, in many states, has been taken hostage by money power, muscle power, and entrenched networks of patronage.
What is particularly alarming is that voters often reward such candidates, sometimes with overwhelming margins. Local influence, coercion, and the ability to mobilise resources frequently outweigh questions of morality and legality. It is not just a failure of law-it is a failure of collective conscience.
The Scale of the Problem
The extent of criminalisation in Indian politics can be gauged from hard data.
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), which has consistently analysed the affidavits of candidates, has revealed a disturbing upward trajectory:
In the 2009 Lok Sabha, 30% of members of Parliament had pending criminal cases. In the 2014 Lok Sabha, this rose to 34%. By 2019, 233 MPs – 43% of the House – faced criminal charges.
The 2024 Lok Sabha set a new record: 251 winning candidates, or 46% of the total strength, declared criminal cases against themselves. Out of these, 170 (31%) faced serious charges such as murder, attempt to murder, rape, kidnapping, and crimes against women.
The picture at the state level is equally bleak, often worse. State assemblies across the country have an even higher percentage of members with criminal records, suggesting that the problem is deeply entrenched in local politics. In some states, more than half of the legislators have pending criminal cases.
Paradoxically, while citizens often express outrage at corruption and criminalisation, electoral outcomes show that candidates with criminal backgrounds continue to win – sometimes with overwhelming margins. Money, muscle power, and local influence frequently outweigh issues of morality and legality in the calculus of electoral politics.
Why Criminalisation Persists
The persistence of criminalisation is not accidental.
It is the outcome of structural incentives and systemic weaknesses.
Elections are prohibitively expensive. Candidates with criminal connections often command vast financial and coercive resources that make them formidable. Politicians provide protection to criminal actors in exchange for electoral muscle, while criminals acquire legitimacy by entering politics themselves.
Judicial delays guarantee impunity. Criminal trials often drag on for decades, allowing accused leaders to contest, win, and even govern without fear of timely conviction. Witnesses are intimidated, cases are delayed, and legal loopholes exploited to perpetuate a cycle of evasion.
(The writer is Ex-Member Legislative Council Jammu Kashmir)
