National Law Institute University,

Bhopal Pag
e|1

Project of Criminology
On
Criminalization of Politics in India:
A Study of Politicians in the 15th Lok
Sabha
with Criminal Records

Guided by: - Submitted by: -

Mr. G. S. Bajpai Sanchit Singh

Professor and Chairperson, Email id – sanchitbravo@gmail.com
Centre for Civil & Criminal Justice Admin.
 DECLARATION

Pag
e|2
‘The text reported in the project is the outcome of my own efforts and no

part of this report has been copied in any unauthorized manner and no part in

it has been incorporated without due acknowledgement’

Sanchit Singh

Acknowledgement
Every work is the outcome of efforts of many people and this work is no exception to it. I
would like to sincerely thank my respected Criminology teacher Mr. G. S. Bajpai who had
Pag
helped me with developing the necessary understanding of the topic and for his patience e|3
without which this project couldn’t have been completed.

Table of Contents
• Introduction………………………………………………………………………5

• Review of Literature……………………………………………………………..6 Pag

e|4

• Present Study……………………………………………………………………..8

• Observations and Findings………………………………………………………9

• Criminal Theories……………………………………………………………….16

• Existing Legal Provisions……………………………………………………….18

• Special privileges available to MPs……………………………………………..19

• Recommendations……………………………………………………………….21

• Conclusion………………………………………………………………………..23

• References………………………………………………………………………..24

(1) Introduction
Democracy implies rule of law and holding of free elections to ascertain the will of the
people. But in quite recent times this peaceful process of social change has been much
vitiated. Violence, rigging, booth capturing etc. has become the order of the day.
Pag
e|5
Criminalization of politics has become a headache for the Indian democracy. It’s shameful
to admit that in the world’s largest democracy the cult of the gun prevails; Goondas and
Criminals are hired to capture booths and kill political rivals etc. In this way the entire
democratic process is negated.

What’s more surprising and rather shameful is that these people even after committing
serious criminal offences make their way to the Parliament and Assemblies, which is the
highest governing body in the country. Thus you can imagine what will be the fate of the
nation, if power is given to undeserving criminals.

In this project I have tried to identify a few Politicians in the current i.e. 15th Lok Sabha,
with criminal records. I have discussed in detail what prompts them to commit crime with
the help of different criminal theories with respect to the Indian context. Moreover,
discussing the current legal policies in curbing the menace of criminalization and the
reforms required to make the world’s largest democracy clean and efficient enough to
deliver.

Review of Literature

• Law Commission of India Reports:

 Reform of the Electoral Laws (Report No. 170) [1999] INLC 170
(1 May 1999) –

Background - Whether in a parliamentary form of government or a Presidential form,

indeed in every democracy, the process of election should be free, fair and equitable. Pag
Fortunately, our Constitution seek to provide for a free and fair election but problems e|6
have been arising in this regard on account of division in our polity on the basis of
religion, caste, language, region and race. Free and fair elections are the very
foundation of democratic institutions.

However there has been a steady deterioration in the standards, practices and
pronouncements of the political class, which fights the elections. Money-power,
muscle-power, corrupt practices and unfair means are being freely employed to win
the elections. Over the years, several measures have been taken by Parliament to
amend the laws relating to elections with a view to check the aforementioned forces.
This report, which has been prepared after extensive consultations, is a step in the
said process. It is hoped that Parliament will take prompt action to give them
legislative imprimatur.

• THE REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT, 1951:

This act basically came in force to provide the necessary guidelines for the electoral
process in India. It suggests every procedure involved in the electoral process; from
the conduct of polls, the machinery involved for free and fair elections, to
disqualification of members on certain grounds.

Our focus is basically on the part III of the act which talks about the disqualification
of members on certain grounds. CHAPTER III - Disqualifications for Membership of
Parliament and State Legislatures, from s.7 to s. 11 talks about the disqualification of
members

.
• The Constitution of India –
The constitution of India talks under s. 105 about certain rights and privileges under
the subject of, Powers, Privileges and Immunities of Parliaments and its members.

These immunities give the member certain special privileges to carry out their duties
in the parliament.
 • Criminal Behaviour – A Psychological Approach, 5th Edition, Written by – Curt R.
Bartol, Published by – Prentice Hall Inc. U.S.A. –
This literature was extremely helpful in understanding the human nature and criminal
theories, which explain the phenomenon of criminalization of politics.
Pag
e|7
• Study of Composition of 15th Lok Sabha by National Election Watch with the help
of Affidavits provided by the Election Commission of India –
This data base was the main source of information regarding the availability of
statistics about the criminal records of Members of Parliament.

The stats were taken directly from the affidavits available on The Election
Commission’s website.

(2) Present Study

(A) Statement of Problem:

Criminalization of politics in India: A study of politicians in the 15th Lok Sabha with
criminal records. This is about studying the composition of parliamentarians with criminal
records in the current Lok Sabha so as to obtain a pattern whether the crime is centralized
or scattered. Then, analysing with the help of different theories of crime the motivation
behind the criminal acts. Studying the legal provisions in force to address the problem and
suggesting reforms and solution to curb the menace.
 (B) Methodology
This project work has been designed as a Doctrinal study.
(i) Objectives – this project tries to address the following 4 objectives-
Pag
e|8
• To study the composition of MPs with criminal records.

• Analysing the reasons behind committing of crimes with the help of different
criminal theories.

• Role of existing legal provisions regarding the qualification of candidates. Are they
efficient enough to prevent criminals from contesting?

• Steps to curtail the criminalization of politics.

(ii) Hypothesis – we suppose that the root cause of crime among politicians is the result
of obsession with power and fearlessness of law. And crime is a shortcut to name, fame and
money.
(iii) Sources of Secondary Data Collection –
• Books on criminal theories and constitutional provisions.

• Internet Databases including the websites of various newspapers like DNA, The
Hindu etc.

• Magazines like Economical & Political Weekly, India Today and Frontline.

• Government Websites hosted by National Informatics Centre.

• Case studies from Manupatra.

(C) Observations and Findings

• Composition of Members in the Parliament with Criminal Records-

[The following statistics are part of the research conducted by National Election Watch,
with the help of data given by the election commission of India]
the following tables will certainly give an idea about the composition of members with
various kind of criminal records in the Parliament -

Pag
e|9

Analysis of 2009 Lok Sabha Winners based on Criminal Background

New Delhi: May 16: National Election Watch NEW), a nationwide campaign comprising
of more than 1200
NGOs and other citizen led organizations, has been working on electoral reforms,
improving democracy and governance in India. This is a press release for results of these
elections for Lok Sabha constituencies

General: A total of 8070 candidates representing 369 parties contested in the recently
held elections. Out of 369 parties, only 36 parties have been successful in sending one or
more MPs into the Lok Sabha. 333 parties that contested elections did not win even a
single seat. And 19 parites have 3 or less MPs in the newly formed Lok Sabha.

NEW has looked at affidavits of 533 declared winners (MPs) for the Lok Sabha 2009 out
of 541 declared results so far. Affidavits of 8 new MPs (all from Tamil Nadu) are not
available on Election commission’s website and about 10 affidavits have not been
properly scanned and uploaded. Unclear details in them have not been taken into account.
We have requested the Electoral office of each state to have these affidavits re-scanned
and be put on the website, so that general public can access this information.

2004 2009 Increase % increase

MPs with criminal records 128 150 22 17.2%
 Total Criminal cases 429 412 -17 -4 %

MPs with serious criminal records 55 72 17 30.9%

Serious charges 302 213 -89 -29.5%

Pag
The maximum criminal charges are against INC’s Gujarat’s MP VITTHALBHAI e|
HANSRAJBHAI RADADIYA. He has a total of 16 cases out of which 5 cases are of 10
serious nature. The maximum no of serious IPC charges are against Jagdis Sharma JD(U).

The top 10 list of MPs with serious criminal charges is given below.

Serious No of Cases No. of Cases in

Serial Name State/Dist Constituency Party Age IPC in which which Total
Counts Accused Convicted
1 Jagdis Sharma BIHAR Jahanabad JD(U) 58 17 6 0 6
UTTAR
2 BAL KUMAR PATEL Mirzapur SP 48 13 10 0 10
PRADESH
PRABHATSINH
3 PRATAPSINH GUJARAT Panchmahal BJP 67 10 3 0 3
CHAUHAN
KAPIL MUNI UTTAR
4 Phulpur BSP 42 8 4 0 4
KARWARIYA PRADESH
5 P.Karunakaran KERALA Kasaragod CPM 64 6 12 0 12
6 Lalu Prasad BIHAR Saran RJD 60 6 2 0 2
KUNVARJIBHAI
7 MOHANBHAI GUJARAT Rajkot INC 54 6 2 0 2
BAVALIYA
VITTHALBHAI
8 HANSRAJBHAI GUJARAT Porbandar INC 51 5 16 0 16
RADADIYA
FEROZE VARUN UTTAR
9 Pilibhit BJP 29 5 6 0 6
GANDHI PRADESH
CHANDRAKANT
10 GUJARAT Navsari BJP 54 5 6 0 6
RAGHUNATH PATIL

MPs with criminal background party wise:

MPs with Percentage of MPs Percentage of MPs
Total MPs with Serious
Party Criminal with Criminal with Serious
MPs Criminal Charges
Charges Charges Criminal Charges
BJP 116 42 36.21 19 16.38
INC 202 41 20.30 12 5.94
SP 22 8 36.36 7 31.82
SHS 11 8 72.73 3 27.27
JD(U) 20 7 35.00 3 15.00
BSP 21 6 28.57 6 28.57
BJD 14 4 28.57 1 7.14
 AITC 19 4 21.05 4 21.05
NCP 9 4 44.44 3 33.33

Pag
e|
11

DMK 16 3 18.75 1 6.25

RJD 4 3 75.00 2 50.00
CPM 15 3 20.00 1 6.67
ADMK 7 3 42.86 3 42.86
RLD 5 2 40.00 1 20.00
JD(S) 3 2 66.67 1 33.33
TDP 6 2 33.33 1 16.67
JVM 1 1 100.00 0 0.00
VCK 1 1 100.00 1 100.00
AIMIM 1 1 100.00 1 100.00
SAD 4 1 25.00 0 0.00
IND 9 1 11.11 0 0.00
JMM 2 1 50.00 1 50.00
TRS 2 1 50.00 0 0.00
AIFB 2 1 50.00 1 50.00
Total 533 150 28.14% 72 13.51%

MPs with criminal background state wise:

Percentage of
MPs with
MPs with MPs with
Total Percentage of MPs with Serious Serious
State Criminal
MPs Criminal Charges Criminal
Charges Criminal
Charges
Charges
UTTAR PRADESH 79 30 37.97 21 26.58
MAHARASHTRA 48 23 47.92 9 18.75
BIHAR 40 17 42.50 6 15.00
ANDHRA PRADESH 42 11 26.19 3 7.14
GUJARAT 26 11 42.31 7 26.92
KARNATAKA 28 9 32.14 5 17.86
WEST BENGAL 42 7 16.67 7 16.67
TAMIL NADU 31 7 22.58 5 16.13
JHARKHAND 14 6 42.86 1 7.14
KERALA 20 6 30.00 2 10.00
ORISSA 21 5 23.81 2 9.52 Pag
MADHYA PRADESH 29 4 13.79 2 6.90 e|
PUNJAB
CHHATTISGARH 13
11 2 15.38
18.18 10 7.69
0.00 12
RAJASTHAN 24 2 8.33 0 0.00
HARYANA 10 2 20.00 1 10.00
JAMMU & KASHMIR 6 1 16.67 0 0.00
NATIONAL CAPITAL
TERRITORY OF 7 1 14.29 0 0.00
DELHI
DADRA & NAGAR
1 1 100.00 0 0.00
HAVELI
ANDAMAN &
1 1 100.00 0 0.00
NICOBAR ISLANDS
ASSAM 14 1 7.14 0 0.00
UTTARAKHAND 5 1 20.00 0 0.00
Total 533 150 28.14% 72 13.51%
 Pag
e|
13

No of No. of
Serious Cases in Cases in
IPC which which Total
SerialName State/Dist Constituency Party Age Counts Accused Convicted cases
RAJKUMARI UTTAR
1 RATNA SINGH PRADESH Pratapgarh INC 49 3 6 0 6

Angadi Suresh
2 Channabasappa KARNATAKA Belgaum BJP 55 1 2 0 2

3 TAMBIDURAI.M TAMIL NADU Karur ADMK 62 1 2 0 2

UTTAR
4 JAGDAMBIKA PRADESH Domariyaganj INC 59 0 1 0 1
PAL
5 Sushil Kumar BIHAR Aurangabad JD(U) 43 2 4 0 4
Singh
6 P.Karunakaran KERALA Kasaragod CPM 64 6 12 0 12
UTTAR
7 HARSH PRADESH Maharajganj INC 61 0 3 0 3
VARDHAN
VINAY KUMAR UTTAR
8 ALIAS VINNU PRADESH Shrawasti INC 45 4 9 0 9

Crorepati MPs who have criminal records and have not declared
their PAN details -

[Candidates' affidavit with nomination papers is the source of this

analysis.]

www.adrindia.org, www.nationalelectionwatch.org, adr@adrindia.org,

 Pag
e|
14

Observations:

MPs with criminal background:

There are 150 newly elected MPs with criminal cases pending against
them. Out of these, there are 73 MPs having serious charges against
them. Here is the high level summary of the new lok sabha:

• Affidavits available for MPs - 533

• MPs with criminal charges - 150 (28.14 %)
• MPs with serious criminal charges - 72 (13.51 %)
• Total criminal cases against MPs - 412
• Total serious IPC sections against MPs – 213

As compared to 2004, the no of MPs with criminal records has gone up. There
were 128 MPs with criminal cases in 2004 Lok Sabha out of which 55 had
serious criminal records. There is an increase of about 17.2% in MPs with
criminal records and 30.9% increase in the number of MPs with serious
criminal records.

MPs with criminal background party wise:

BJP has maximum MPs having criminal cases – 42 MPs have criminal cases
against them, out of which 17 MPs have serious criminal cases against them.
It has followed by congress – 41 MPs with criminal cases out of which 12
MPs have serious charges against them. SP has 8 MPs with criminal cases out
of which 7 has serious charges, followed by Shivsena which has 8 MPs with
criminal charges out of which 3 have serious charges. Pag
e|
15
MPs with criminal background state wise:

Amongst the states, UP has maximum MPs with criminal cases (total of 31 out
of which 22 have serious charges
against them). Maharashtra is second with 23 MPs having criminal cases
out of which 9 have serious cases against them. It is followed by Bihar,
Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat. The full details of all states are give in the
table below:

Criminal Record, Crorepati and No PAN -

Out of 25 Crorepati MPs who have not declared their PAN, 8 have criminal
cases against them. There are 17 serious IPC charges against them including
attempt to murder, robbery, dacoity and forgery. 2 Crorepati MPs have
attempt to murder charges against them. - Ratna Singh INC MP from
Pratapgarh (2 attempts to murder charges) and Vinay Kumar INC MP from
Shrawasti, UP (3 murder charges).
 Underlying Assumptions about Human Nature, Pag
e|
& 16
Criminal theories with respect to Criminalization of politics –

1) Humans are creature of conformity who always wants to do the right thing –
An excellent example of this conformity perspective in criminology is the
‘Strain Theory’ of ‘Robert K. Merton’.

Merton’s Strain theory argues that humans are fundamentally conforming

beings. Most members of a given society desire what the other member of the
society desire.
For e.g. in America, accumulation of wealth or status is all important.
However, it’s very important to understand that the access or means for reaching
these goals are not equally available to everyone in the society. Some have the
education, social network, personal contacts, family influence and in some cases
might. And some do not have these opportunities.

The strain theory predicts that crime and delinquency occur when there is a
perceived discrepancy between the materialistic values and goals cherished and
held in high esteem by a society and the availability of the legitimate means for
reaching these goals

Thus, it can be easily contrasted in the Indian scenario that you will find most of
the politicians who are committing crimes are basically criminal turned
politicians, who in an attempt to legitimize their power got to politics. People
who are educated are comparatively less prone to commit crime rather they will
try to stick to democratic means. For e.g. you will find crimes in the political
constituencies where there is illiteracy, poverty and no development at all.
People from this marginalized areas in search of power resort to might.
2) Expectancy Theory – Julian Rotter is best known for drawing attention to
the importance of expectations about the consequences of behavior. In other Pag
e|
words, before doing anything, we ask, “what has happened to me before this 17
situation and what will I gain this time?”
Applying Rotter’s theory to criminal behavior we should say that when people
engage in unlawful conduct, they expect to gain something in the form of status,
power, security, affection, material goods or living conditions.
it becomes very clear from the above statement that politicians for instance will
not hesitate to engage themselves in some unlawful activity if they gain
something in return, preferably power or status.

3) Imitational Aspects of Social Learning – Bandura introduced the idea of,

what he called observational learning or modeling, to the social learning
process.
He contended that much of our behavior is initially acquired by watching
others, who are called models. The observed behavior of the model is also more
likely to be imitated if the observer sees the model receive an award.
Conversely, it’s less likely to be imitated if the model is punished. Bandura
believes much like Rotter that once a person decides to use a newly acquired
behavior, whether he or she will maintain that behavior depends on the
prospects of the potential gain.
Let’s understand this principle in the light of our topic. The newcomers in
politics will find a model or guru in the political field, and if he follows a
politician who has certainly achieved name and money by doing criminal acts,
it’s highly likely that he will also follow the same footsteps.
But if people have a good example that committing crime is a very serious
mistake in society, people are less likely to resort to criminal behavior.
Existing Legal Provisions to Discourage Politicians with Criminal Records

The electoral law’s policy on criminals is as follows: Pag

e|
18
(i) Criminal accused even if charge- sheeted and undergoing trial can stand for
election irrespective of how serious the charge is.

(ii) Candidates convicted of communal and social offences shall be disqualified

for six years if punished by fine; and if imprisoned further six years from
release.

(iii) Candidates convicted of profiteering, adulteration of food and medicine or

under the Dowry Act shall be disqualified for six years from release if convicted
for more than six months.

(iv)Candidates convicted of any crime for 2 years or more shall be disqualified

for six years from release.

(v) Candidates who are sitting MP’s effectively continue as MP until the final
appeal to the highest court through an MP’s loop-hole.

Also there are provisions of s. 7 to s. 11 which on certain grounds disqualify a

member from the house. But because of slow justice delivery system, criminals
always are under trial and are thus allowed to contest the election and they win
too.
But thanks to judicial activism, 4 candidates including Sanjay Dutt were barred
from contesting the elections in 2009 general elections.
This move was welcomed by many of the jurists. They said that stricter laws
need to be implemented so that criminals go to “prison and not parliament”.
 Special privileges to Members of Parliament

There are many privileges given to the Member of Parliament under s. 105 of
the Indian Constitution. They are as follows – Pag
e|
19
1. Subject to the provisions of this Constitution and the rules and standing
orders regulating the procedure of Parliament, there shall be freedom of speech
in Parliament.

2. No Member of Parliament shall be liable to any proceeding in any court in

respect of anything said or any vote given by him in Parliament or any
committee thereof, and no person shall be so liable in respect of the publication
by or under the authority of either House of Parliament of any report, paper,
votes or proceedings.

3. In other respects, the powers, privileges and immunities of each House of

Parliament, and the members and the committee of each House, shall be such as
may from time to time be defined by Parliament by law, and until so defined,
[shall be those of that House and of its members and committees immediately
before the coming into force of Section 15 of the Constitution (44th
Amendment) Act, 1978].

4. The provision of clauses (1), (2), and (3) shall apply in relation to persons
who by virtue of this Constitution have the right to speak in, and otherwise to
take part in the proceedings of, a House of Parliament or any committee thereof
as they apply in relation to the members of Parliament.

In relation to the project we’ll focus on the Law Courts and Privileges &
Freedom from Arrest;
Article 105, so also Article 194 subjects the powers, privileges and immunities
of each House as well as all its members and all its committees not only to the
laws made by the appropriate legislature but also to all other provisions of the
Constitution. Both these articles far from dealing with the legislative powers of
the Houses of Parliament or of State Legislature respectively are confined in Pag
e|
scope to such powers of each House as it may exercise separately functioning as 20
a House .
A House of Parliament or Legislature cannot try anyone or any case directly as a
court of justice can, but it can proceed quasi judicially in cases of contempt of
its authority or take up motions concerning its privileges and immunities in
order to seek removal of obstructions to the due performance of its legislative
functions. If any question of jurisdiction arises as to a certain matter, it has to be
decided by a court of law in appropriate proceedings. For example, the
jurisdiction to try a criminal offence such as murder, committed even within a
House vests in ordinary courts and not in a of Parliament or in a State
Legislature. Also, a House of Parliament or State Legislature cannot in exercise
of any supposed powers under Articles 105 and 194 decide election disputes for
which special authorities have been constituted under the Representation of
People Act, 1951 enacted in compliance with Article 329.

In India freedom from arrest has been limited to civil causes and has not been
applied to arrest on criminal charges or to detention under the Preventive
Detention Act. Also there is no privilege if arrest is made under s.151 Criminal
Procedure Code. It has been held in K. Anandan Kumar v. Chief Secretary,
Government of Madras, that matters of Parliament do not enjoy any special
status as compared to an ordinary citizen in respect of valid orders of detention.

Recommendations to Curb Criminalization of Politics

Promoting Intra – Party Democracy and Transparency –

Whether by design or by omission, our Constitution does not provide for the Pag
e|
constitution and working of the political parties, though they are at the heart of
21
a parliamentary democracy. A parliamentary democracy without political
parties is inconceivable. Yet the Constitution (except the Tenth Schedule
which was inserted only in the year 1985) does not even speak of political
parties whereas article 21 of the German Constitution (Basic Law for the
Federal Republic of Germany, 1949), which Constitution was also enacted
almost simultaneously with our Constitution, provides for the establishment
and working of the political parties. The Article reads thus:

Article 21 (Parties) (1) the parties shall help form the political will of the
people. They may be freely established. Their internal organisation shall
conform to democratic principles. They shall publicly account for the sources
and use of their funds and for their assets.

Thus if the party doesn’t allow candidates with criminal records to contest in
the election just imagine, how fair and free would be the democratic process in
India.

Fast Track Courts for Politicians with Criminal Records – many criminals
are just allowed to contest in the elections just because they are not convicted
and under the trial of court. This practice can be avoided if special
arrangements are made for speedy trial of the politicians with criminal records.
Because it needs to be understood that such people should not be allowed to sit
in the highly esteemed house of parliament, which decides the fate of the
country.
Stricter Laws – stricter laws need to be implemented to prevent criminals from
contesting the election. And once convicted he must be barred from contesting
any election for the next 10 years or so.
Pag
Plus parties with more no. of criminals must be blacklisted and disciplinary e|
22
action must be taken.

Conclusion: Matters of concern

The criminalization of politics continues to be a very big concern, with an
increase in the number of MPs with criminal records in 2004 from 128 to 150
in 2009. Even the number of MPs with serious criminal cases has gone up. The Pag
e|
biggest reason for this seems to be the undemocratic and autocratic selection 23
and nomination of candidates by political parties. In order to ensure the win
ability of candidates, parties ignored honesty to give preference to muscle
power and money power.

As media reports seem to indicate, the misuse of monetary incentives to buy

votes has increased sharply since last elections and continues to be a source of
threat to real democracy. While voter awareness on this issue is very high,
the problem is that those who win after spending huge amounts are unlikely to
focus on good governance. They are more likely to focus on recovering the
funds they spent and on giving favors to those who supported their campaigns.

Not only the new government must tackle these issues on a priority basis and
include them in their agenda but it’s very important on people’s part to be aware
of not voting for the wrong person and be a part of ‘No to Criminals in
Politics’

References
• Bartol Curt R. (2001). Criminal behavior – A Psychosocial
Approach, fifth edition, Prentice Hall Inc.

Pag
• REFORM OF THE ELECTORAL LAWS (Report No. 170) e|
[1999] INLC 170 (1 May 1999), Law Commission of India 24
Reports.

• Representation of the People’s Act, 1951

• National Election Watch, Lok Sabha Analysis,

http://nationalelectionwatch.org/files/new/pdfs/Lok%20Sabha
%20high%20level%20analysis.pdf

• National Election Watch, Post – Election Analysis,

http://www.domain-b.com/economy/general/post_election.pdf

• P. M. Bakshi (2009).The Constitution of India, Universal Law

Publications.

• http://www.manupatra.com