English हिन्दी
Connect with us

India News

SC leaves it to Parliament to frame law to bar criminal politicians from contesting polls

Published

on

SC leaves it to Parliament to frame law to bar criminal politicians from contesting polls

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that it cannot disqualify candidates with criminal cases against them from contesting elections and urged the Parliament to enact a law to ensure that people with serious criminal charges do not enter public life.

A five-judge Constitution bench, headed by Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra and also comprising Justices RF Nariman, AM Khanwilkar, DY Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra, said the time had come for a law against criminalisation of politics. The “nation eagerly waits for such legislation”.

The apex court said that the country was facing an increasing trend of criminalisation of politics and that it strikes at the very root of democracy.

The SC bench, however, issues directives to check criminalisation.

It directed that all candidates must state, in bold, details of criminal cases pending against them in their election affidavit. Candidates must also share this information with their respective political parties, which will in turn upload this on their websites.

Parties should also issue a declaration on the criminal antecedents of their candidates in a widely circulated publication, said the SC bench. It said this should be done at least three times after filing of nomination papers.

To facilitate this transparency by parties, candidates should first give complete information about their criminal past or pending cases to the parties on whose ticket they intend to contest elections, stated the judgment.

This is to ensure that the ordinary voter can have an “informed choice” about who (s)he has to vote for in a country “tired of money and muscle power,” said the court.

The direction to compel political parties to go public about their “criminal” candidates is a step to “foster and nurture an informed citizenry” and to protect the “culture and purity in politics.”

The court said criminal politicians are nothing but a liability to this country. Their presence in power strikes at the roots of democracy. Criminalisation of politics and corruption, especially at the entry level of elections, has become a national and economic terror. It is a disease which is self-destructive and becoming immune to antibiotics, opined the court.

“There is a steady increase in the level of criminality creeping into politics,” the court observed. Parties need to come clean about the criminal elements within their apparatus.

Chief Justice Misra, who authored the verdict for the Bench, directed “each contesting candidate,” whether he or she belongs to a party or not, to fill up all the required information in the forms to be submitted to the Election Commission of India before an election.

The Bench, however, made it clear that the Supreme Court cannot legislate for Parliament and add a disqualification that candidates charged with heinous crimes should be banned from contesting elections.

The chief justice added that the court was “not in a position to add disqualification of candidates on filing of chargesheet in criminal cases.”

The Court urged Parliament to consider such a disqualification, saying the nation eagerly awaits its decision. It noted that the Election Commission of India has its hands tied, watching on as criminalisation of politics at the entry level is on the rise.

“It is the duty of parliament to keep money and muzzle power at bay. Parliament should cure the malignancy and it is not incurable before it becomes fatal to democracy,” Chief Justice of India Dipak Misra said.

The SC said “time has come for the Parliament to act” and empower the poll body. “The court declares the law, the Parliament makes the law,” Justice Nariman had observed.

Chief Justice Misra had pointed out that Parliament was obliged under Article 102 (1) (e) to make a law. “As conscience-keepers of the Constitution, we [Supreme Court] can ask you [Parliament] to do it,” he stated.

False cases foisted upon politicians

During arguments, Attorney General KK Venugopal, representing the centre, had said that denying a person the right to contest polls on a party ticket would amount to denying them the right to vote, which includes the right to contest. “Mere allegation cannot prevent a member from contesting.”

The court, he asserted, can’t remain oblivious of the fact that political aspirants are often framed in cases ahead of polls and said that fast-track courts to try accused politicians were “the only solution”.

The petitioners pointed out that trials in cases involving politicians were deliberately delayed, and therefore, several lawbreakers entered the legislature and become lawmakers.

Chief Justice Dipak Misra said, “It is one thing to take cover under the presumption of innocence, but it is another to allow politics to be smeared by criminal stain.” The court said Parliament should also consider the issue of false cases foisted upon politicians.

Under the Representation of the People Act, convicted lawmakers are disqualified from contesting elections, but not accused ones.

The bench was hearing a batch of petitions seeking disqualification of chargesheeted lawmakers from contesting elections. The petitions were filed by NGO Public Interest Foundation and Delhi BJP leader Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay. The bench had reserved its verdict in the case on August 28.

In an affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court in March this year, the Centre said a total of 3,816 criminal cases were registered against 1,765 MPs and MLAs across the country, of which 3,045 cases are pending. The figures did not include cases registered in Maharashtra and Goa. Uttar Pradesh leads the pack with 565 cases against 248 MPs and MLAs, followed by Kerala with 533 cases against 114 legislators. Tamil Nadu is third on the list with 402 cases against 178 MPs and MLAs, of which 324 are pending.

India News

Rahul Gandhi, Centre clash over Ladakh deepens as eight Congress MPs suspended

The Lok Sabha saw repeated disruptions after Rahul Gandhi was denied permission to speak on the Ladakh issue, leading to protests and the suspension of eight Congress MPs.

Published

on

Chaos engulfed the Lok Sabha on Tuesday as tensions between the opposition and the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party intensified over Congress leader Rahul Gandhi’s attempt to raise the issue of the India-China military standoff in Ladakh. The disruption eventually led to the suspension of eight Congress MPs for the remainder of the parliamentary session.

The confrontation unfolded after the Leader of the Opposition tried, for the second consecutive day, to read out excerpts from an unpublished book by former Army chief General M.M. Naravane that refer to the 2020 Ladakh crisis. The Speaker denied permission, citing procedural rules, triggering protests from opposition members.

Several MPs protested by refusing to speak when called upon, expressing solidarity with Gandhi. The uproar forced repeated adjournments of the House and, according to reports, involved members throwing pieces of paper towards the Chair.

Following the disorder, eight Congress MPs — including Hibi Eden, Amarinder Raja Warring and Manickam Tagor — were suspended. Warring later questioned the action, saying the protests were in response to Gandhi being denied the opportunity to speak despite having authenticated the document and submitted it to the House.

The BJP strongly criticised the Congress leadership. Party MP Anurag Thakur accused Rahul Gandhi of undermining Parliament and insulting the armed forces, alleging that the opposition was attempting to distract from recent government actions, including the presentation of the Union Budget. He also said the BJP would move a formal complaint seeking strict action against the suspended MPs.

Outside Parliament, Gandhi accused the ruling party of trying to silence him, saying he was prevented from speaking on the sensitive issue of the India-China border. He argued that he had followed procedure by authenticating the content he wished to quote but was still denied permission.

What happened a day earlier

On Monday, the Speaker had also disallowed Gandhi from reading the excerpts, with senior ministers countering his remarks during the debate. Government sources later maintained that the Congress leader violated House rules by attempting to introduce unpublished material into the official record without prior approval.

When proceedings resumed on Tuesday, Gandhi again raised the matter, insisting that the information had been authenticated. As the Speaker moved on to other members, two opposition MPs from the Samajwadi Party and Trinamool Congress declined to speak, signalling their support for him.

Rahul Gandhi targets India-US trade deal

Separately, Gandhi also criticised Prime Minister Narendra Modi over what he described as a lack of transparency surrounding the India-US trade deal. He questioned how negotiations that had reportedly remained unresolved for months were concluded overnight and alleged that the agreement compromised the interests of Indian farmers, particularly in agriculture and dairy.

Government sources, however, rejected these claims, stating that sensitive sectors would remain protected and that the deal does not undermine farmers’ interests. They said contentious issues, including market access, had been carefully handled.

The opposition has demanded full disclosure of the terms of the agreement, even as both sides continue to trade sharp political accusations inside and outside Parliament.

Continue Reading

India News

Mamata Banerjee alleges mass voter deletions in Bengal, targets Election Commission

Mamata Banerjee has accused the Election Commission of deleting thousands of voter names without due process, raising questions over the timing of the exercise ahead of elections.

Published

on

Mamata Banerjee

West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Monday intensified her attack on the Election Commission over voter roll revisions, alleging that a large number of names have been deleted without due process as the state heads towards elections.

Addressing party workers, Banerjee claimed that 40,000 voters’ names were removed from her constituency alone, alleging that the deletions were carried out unilaterally and without giving voters a chance to be heard.

“In my constituency they have deleted 40,000 voters’ names unilaterally… Even a murderer gets a chance to defend himself,” she said.

Allegations against election officials

The chief minister directly accused an election official, alleging political bias and irregular conduct in the revision process. She claimed that voter names were being removed while officials sat in Election Commission offices, calling the process illegal.

“They cannot do it, it is illegal. 58 lakh names have been unilaterally deleted,” she said, echoing claims earlier made by Trinamool Congress leader Abhishek Banerjee.

Banerjee also alleged that individuals described as “micro-observers” had been appointed illegally, claiming they had no role under the Representation of the People Act and were linked to the BJP.

‘Alive but marked dead’

In a dramatic moment during her address, the chief minister asked those present who had been marked as deceased in the voter lists to raise their hands.

“See, they are alive but as per the Election Commission they are dead,” she said.

She further alleged that names were being deleted under the category of “logical discrepancy,” adding that even noted economist and Nobel laureate Amartya Sen had earlier been questioned regarding the age of his mother.

Questions over timing of voter roll exercise

While stating that she did not oppose the Special Intensive Revision process in principle, Banerjee questioned the timing of the exercise.

“I have no problem with SIR, but why do it on the eve of elections? Why not after elections?” she asked.

Reiterating confidence in her party’s organisational strength, the chief minister said she was prepared to fight the issue politically and democratically.

Continue Reading

India News

Supreme Court raps Meta over WhatsApp privacy policy

The Supreme Court warned Meta that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy while hearing a case related to WhatsApp’s 2021 privacy policy and a CCI penalty.

Published

on

WhatsApp

The Supreme Court on Tuesday delivered strong observations against Meta, the parent company of WhatsApp, over the messaging platform’s 2021 privacy policy, warning that it would not tolerate any compromise of citizens’ privacy.

A bench led by Chief Justice Surya said the court would not allow the sharing of user data in a manner that exploits Indians, remarking that privacy protections under the Constitution must be followed. “You can’t play with privacy… we will not allow you to share a single digit of our data,” the Chief Justice said during the hearing.

The matter relates to a plea challenging the law tribunal’s decision that upheld a ₹213 crore penalty imposed by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on WhatsApp, while also permitting certain data-sharing practices for advertising purposes.

Court questions accessibility of privacy policy

During the hearing, the court raised concerns about whether WhatsApp’s privacy policy could realistically be understood by large sections of the population, particularly those who are poor or not formally educated.

The bench questioned if users such as roadside vendors, rural residents, or people who do not speak English would be able to comprehend the policy’s terms. It also expressed scepticism about the effectiveness of opt-out clauses, stating that even legally trained individuals find such policies difficult to understand.

Describing the alleged data practices as potentially exploitative, the court said it would not allow private information to be taken without genuine and informed consent from users.

The Chief Justice also cited a personal example, suggesting that users often begin seeing advertisements shortly after exchanging sensitive messages on WhatsApp, such as medical conversations, raising questions about how user data is being utilised.

Arguments from government and Meta

Appearing for the government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta criticised WhatsApp’s data-sharing practices, calling them exploitative and commercially driven. In response, the Chief Justice said that if companies cannot operate in line with constitutional values, they should not do business in India.

Senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Akhil Sibal, appearing for Meta and WhatsApp, countered the allegations by asserting that all WhatsApp messages are end-to-end encrypted and that the company cannot read message content.

Background of the case

In November 2024, the CCI ruled against WhatsApp over its 2021 privacy policy, holding that the company had abused its dominant market position by effectively forcing users to accept the updated terms.

The watchdog objected to WhatsApp making continued access to messaging services conditional on permitting data-sharing with other Meta platforms, leading to the imposition of a ₹213 crore fine. Meta has deposited the penalty.

In January 2025, Meta and WhatsApp challenged the CCI order. Later, in November 2025, the law tribunal lifted a five-year restriction on data-sharing while maintaining the financial penalty.

Continue Reading

Trending

© Copyright 2022 APNLIVE.com