While laws exist disqualifying political aspirants with conviction records behind them from contesting elections, there is no bar on political aspirants facing criminal charges. The issue of framing laws and the Supreme Court passing guidelines to disqualify such aspirants “at the very stage of framing of charges against him by the trial court” before such laws being passed has been brought before the Supreme Court constitution bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Rohinton Fali Nariman, A M Khanwilkar, D Y Chandrachud and Indu Malhotra by Public Interest Foundation.
On Thursday (August 9) senior counsel Dinesh Dwivedi, for the petitioner, made a strong point for the apex court’s guidelines now.
As Justice Nariman said: “The traditional Lakshman Rekha cannot be crossed. We declare the law, parliament makes the law. It cannot be vice-versa. We cannot make law and parliament cannot declare the law,” Dwivedi pointed out the growing cases of criminally oriented aspirants in the Indian political firmament.
He said: “A 2014 report of the law commission shows that 34 percent legislators are facing criminal trial. Today that percentage is as high as 45. Under such circumstances, will the legislators pass any statute (banning candidates with criminal charges against them)ever? That is the question that remains unanswered. If it is not done now, it cannot be done ever.”
He said that the judges were the guardians of the constitution. He said “the field can be taken by the court if the statute is silent.” He said that there are three stages to a criminal trial. The law is clear on the third stage, that upon conviction the person stands disqualified. However, the law is silent about the first two stages. Hence the court can intervene and lay down a rule.”
At that Justice Nariman suggested fast track trial for people contesting elections. “By passing specific directions we can try to shorten the time duration taken from framing of charges till judgment.”
Justice Chandrachud said: “While putting a distinction between qualification and disqualification, if a candidate cannot subscribe to the oath prescribed in schedule 3, he becomes not qualified. Leave disqualification aside, and his nomination can be rejected on that ground.”
Attorney General K K Venugopal pointed out that delay in concluding a trial is due to the weak witness protection laws in India. No one comes forward voluntarily as a witness as it poses threat to the witness which include his family members.”
Dwivedi insisted: “Law breakers cannot be law makers.”
The CJI asked: “How do we inject purity?”
A senior counsel said: “(Political) parties deliberately choose candidates with criminal background for two reasons. Firstly, they bring their own money to contest elections and secondly they make things happen.”
That was when Dwivedi asked for interim guidelines from the court, till such time when Parliament passes any legislation.
—India Legal Bureau