On January 21, 2025, the Supreme Court of India discussed the implications of barring individuals charged with serious crimes from elections. Advocate Ashwini Upadhyay underscored the need for clean candidates, while Justices questioned the availability of such individuals. A prior 2020 judgment mandated political parties to disclose candidates’ criminal histories. The court will hear further arguments on January 27.
New Delhi: On January 21, 2025, the Supreme Court debated whether banning individuals charged with heinous crimes such as murder and rape from contesting elections could cause irreversible harm if they were later found innocent. A Bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh also highlighted existing legal provisions that could address situations where elected individuals are later convicted.
The exchange occurred during an oral mentioning by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, who argued that the right to contest and campaign is not a fundamental right. Emphasizing the need for clean candidates, he stated,
“There are only 5,000 seats up for election and over a billion people… Can we not find honest people to contest in elections?”
Justice Kant, however, questioned,
“And how many of these people come forward to contest in elections, Mr. Upadhyay?”
He added,
“We, as a nation, need to introspect… Do we need honest people?”
Historical Context and 2020 Judgment
The discussion also revisited a significant 2020 Supreme Court judgment delivered by a Bench led by Justice (now retired) Rohinton Nariman. This judgment required political parties to publish the criminal history of their candidates for Assembly and Lok Sabha elections. It mandated political parties to:
- Publish details of candidates’ criminal antecedents, including the nature of offences, charges framed, and case numbers.
- Explain why candidates with a criminal background were selected over others, citing their qualifications, achievements, or merits beyond mere “winnability.”
- Disseminate this information in local and national newspapers, as well as the parties’ social media platforms, either within 48 hours of candidate selection or no later than two weeks before nominations, whichever occurred earlier.
The judgment aimed to curb the growing influence of individuals with serious criminal charges in politics. Justice Nariman noted that political parties should provide transparent reasons for selecting such candidates, ensuring the public could make informed decisions.
Parties were also directed to submit compliance reports to the Election Commission of India within 72 hours, failing which they could face contempt of court.
Current Petition and Upcoming Hearing
Mr. Upadhyay’s petition builds on this framework, urging the court to take stricter measures to ensure honesty in electoral politics. He argued that the lack of honest individuals in politics stemmed from a collapsed system, dissuading qualified people from entering the fray.
The Supreme Court has agreed to hear the matter on January 27, paving the way for further deliberation on balancing individual rights with the larger public interest of ensuring clean governance.
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
