India News

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

Published

8 years ago

September 25, 2018

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.

Up Next

PM Modi accuses Congress of allying with foreign countries to influence Indian politics

Don't Miss

25 IITians among 45 missing in Himachal rains, snowfall

India News

Election Commission orders voter roll revision in 17 states, UTs

The Election Commission has ordered a Special Summary Revision of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories. Draft rolls are scheduled for November 12, with final rolls due on January 4, 2027.

Published

18 mins ago

October 15, 2026

APNLive Desk

The Election Commission of India (ECI) has ordered a Special Summary Revision (SSR) of electoral rolls in 17 states and Union Territories, with the exercise aimed at facilitating voter registration and including eligible electors who may have been left out during the Special Intensive Revision (SIR).

The order was issued on Thursday, October 15, amid continuing political controversy over the SIR process and concerns raised by opposition parties regarding the exclusion of names from electoral rolls.

Under the announced schedule, January 1, 2027, will be the qualifying date for the revision. The draft electoral rolls are scheduled to be published on November 12, while the final rolls are due on January 4, 2027. Uttar Pradesh and Punjab, two states included in the exercise, are scheduled to go to the polls by February 2027.

Which states and Union Territories are covered?

The Special Summary Revision will cover the following 17 states and Union Territories:

Andaman and Nicobar Islands
Assam
Bihar
Chhattisgarh
Goa
Gujarat
Kerala
Lakshadweep
Madhya Pradesh
Manipur
Puducherry
Punjab
Rajasthan
Tamil Nadu
Uttar Pradesh
Uttarakhand
West Bengal

The Election Commission’s order follows earlier instructions issued to state election officials on September 29 to undertake a special drive to enrol eligible voters who had been left out, along with young and first-time electors.

Why has the Election Commission ordered the revision?

The announcement comes amid protests and political disagreements over the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls. Opposition parties have raised concerns about names being excluded during the exercise.

Another point of contention has been an additional declaration required from applicants submitting Form 6 for voter enrolment while the SIR was underway. The declaration required applicants to map their parents to the last SIR, which was conducted around 20 years ago.

The Election Commission had clarified on October 7 that the additional declaration applied only in states and Union Territories where the SIR was being conducted. It said the regular forms prescribed under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, would apply outside the SIR period.

The latest SSR order refers to applications for inclusion through Form 6 but does not mention the additional declaration.

What happens in states not covered by the current schedule?

The Election Commission has said that the schedule for the Special Summary Revision will be announced later in states and Union Territories where the SIR is ongoing or has recently been completed.

These include Andhra Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, Chandigarh, Dadra and Nagar Haveli, Daman and Diu, Haryana, Jharkhand, Karnataka, Maharashtra, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, the National Capital Territory of Delhi, Odisha, Sikkim, Tripura and Telangana.

For Himachal Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, and Ladakh, where the SIR has not yet started, the schedule for electoral roll revision will be announced in due course, taking local weather conditions into account.

The Election Commission’s latest order sets out a separate timeline for the 17 states and Union Territories covered by the current SSR exercise, while leaving the schedules for the other regions to be announced later.

India News

India-US trade deal first phase finalised, drafting underway

The first phase of the India-US trade agreement has been finalised and is undergoing legal drafting, Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal said. The deal is expected to be operationalised once India secures a competitive advantage over peer countries.

Published

3 hours ago

October 15, 2026

APNLive Desk

The first phase of the proposed India-US trade agreement has been finalised and is undergoing legal drafting, Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal said on Thursday. However, the agreement is yet to be fully finalised and implemented, with India seeking a competitive advantage over other countries before putting it into operation.

Speaking at the SRCC Centenary Conclave in New Delhi, Goyal said the first tranche of the bilateral agreement had been finalised and was going through the legal drafting process. He expressed hope that the process would be completed soon.

The minister said implementation would follow once India secured a comparable or competitive advantage over its peer countries in the American market.

India seeks an advantage over competing exporters

India wants its exporters to receive favourable market access and tariff terms compared with competitors. Goyal’s remarks indicate that the relative position of Indian goods in the US market remains an important consideration before the agreement becomes operational.

External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar also spoke about the negotiations at the Bloomberg New Economy Forum this week. He said the discussions were approaching a possible resolution but noted that India’s position relative to competing economies remained an issue.

Jaishankar said the outcome would depend partly on the terms negotiated between India and the United States and partly on how India fares against other competing economies.

Trade negotiations moving forward, says Commerce Secretary

Commerce Secretary Rajesh Agrawal said the negotiations were progressing in the right direction and that both countries hoped to conclude and sign the agreement at the earliest possible time.

He explained that the signing would depend on the formalisation of the broader tariff structure in the United States. Parallel work was also underway in Washington, including processes linked to Section 301.

Agrawal indicated that the two sides would move towards signing the agreement at a mutually agreed time after the relevant tariff framework was formalised.

Earlier this month, US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said India and the United States were working to resolve outstanding issues, although an agreement was not imminent at that point.

India-US trade talks and bilateral relations

India and the United States have been negotiating the proposed bilateral trade pact since early 2025. The discussions aim to address tariff-related differences, reduce non-tariff barriers and improve market access between the two countries.

The negotiations have taken place against the backdrop of broader strains in bilateral relations, including disputes over tariffs and differences concerning other policy issues.

While the finalisation of the first tranche marks progress in the negotiations, the agreement still needs to move through the remaining legal and procedural steps before it can be signed and implemented.

The next steps will depend on the completion of legal drafting, the finalisation of the US tariff framework and the two countries’ agreement on the terms governing the pact.

India News

Nobody can browbeat judiciary, Chief Justice warns over Rahul Gandhi’s march

The Supreme Court issued notices to opposition leaders, including Rahul Gandhi and Akhilesh Yadav, over their march to the court on October 12 concerning irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

Published

7 hours ago

October 15, 2026

APNLive Desk

The Supreme Court has issued notices to Congress leader Rahul Gandhi, Samajwadi Party chief Akhilesh Yadav and other protesters over the opposition’s October 12 march to the apex court. The march was organised to raise concerns about alleged irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls.

The court’s remarks that nobody can browbeat the judiciary have brought the focus back to the dispute over the opposition’s protest and the appropriate way to raise grievances before the court.

Why the opposition marched to the Supreme Court

The march was part of the opposition’s campaign against what it described as irregularities in the voter-list revision process. The opposition has raised concerns over alleged electoral malpractice and demanded action concerning the Election Commission and the revision of electoral rolls.

Rahul Gandhi had led the march to the Supreme Court after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant declined a request to meet opposition leaders, including Gandhi and Congress president Mallikarjun Kharge.

The Chief Justice had advised the leaders to approach the court through the judicial process rather than seek an administrative meeting to discuss issues already pending before the Supreme Court.

Chief Justice’s position on approaching the court

The Chief Justice had said that the Supreme Court’s doors were open to every citizen and that people could approach it through petitions. He also indicated that matters affecting citizens would be considered in accordance with the law.

The distinction between the administrative and judicial functions of the court was central to the disagreement over the opposition leaders’ request for a meeting. The Chief Justice’s position was that pending legal issues should be addressed through judicial proceedings.

Supreme Court issues notices over the march

The Supreme Court issued notices to Rahul Gandhi, Akhilesh Yadav and other protesters concerning the October 12 march. The proceedings relate to the protest over irregularities in the Special Intensive Revision of electoral rolls.

The opposition’s allegations about the voter-list revision remain allegations and should not be treated as established findings merely because the matter has reached the court.

The developments have placed the opposition’s protest, its concerns over electoral rolls and the judiciary’s role in addressing such disputes at the centre of the ongoing debate.