Criminalisation of Politics in India: Why It Persists and How to Address It

What Do We Mean by “Criminalisation of Politics”?

Criminalisation of politics refers to the entry, participation, and dominance of individuals with criminal backgrounds in the political and electoral process. It includes both:

Direct criminal involvement of candidates and elected representatives; and
Indirect influence of criminal networks on governance, policy, and decision-making.

The phenomenon blurs the line between law-makers and law-breakers, eroding public trust and the moral foundation of democracy.

The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has been tracking this trend for two decades through analysis of candidates’ self-sworn affidavits filed with the Election Commission of India (ECI).

What Does the Latest ADR Report (2025) Reveal?

The ADR’s 2025 study of 643 ministers from 27 States, 3 Union Territories, and the Union Council of Ministers paints a grim picture:

Parameter	Data
Total Ministers Analyzed	643
Ministers with Criminal Cases	302 (47%)
Ministers with Serious Criminal Cases	174 (27%)

“Serious” cases include murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, and crimes against women.

At the Union level: 29 of 72 ministers (≈40%) have declared criminal cases.
High-incidence States (≥ 60%): Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Odisha, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, Telangana, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, Puducherry.
Zero-incidence States: Haryana, Jammu & Kashmir, Nagaland, Uttarakhand.

How Is Wealth Linked with Criminalisation?

ADR also found extraordinary wealth concentration among ministers:

Total assets declared: ₹23,929 crore
Average per minister: ₹37.21 crore
11 Assemblies have billionaire ministers

Top 3 richest ministers:

Dr Chandra Sekhar Pemmasani (TDP) – ₹ 5,705 crore
D. K. Shivakumar (Congress) – ₹ 1,413 crore
N. Chandrababu Naidu (TDP) – ₹ 931 crore

At the Union level, 8 % of ministers are billionaires.
The fusion of crime and wealth in political office symbolises institutionalised corruption—where governance networks themselves perpetuate unethical practices.

Why Is Criminalisation of Politics a Cause for Concern?

Erosion of Democratic Legitimacy – When law-breakers make laws, the moral authority of the State weakens.
Policy Capture – Elected criminals can shape legislation or administrative action to protect vested interests.
Unfair Competition – Honest candidates face intimidation or financial disadvantage.
Public Cynicism – Voter disillusionment leads to apathy and lower participation, threatening democratic vibrancy.
Administrative Paralysis – Bureaucracy becomes compromised under political pressure, leading to poor governance outcomes.

How Deep Is the Politico-Criminal Nexus?

The problem is not new. The Vohra Committee Report (1993) exposed the nexus among politicians, criminals, and bureaucrats, noting how criminal elements gained legitimacy through political patronage, while politicians depended on them for muscle and money power.
Subsequent reports by the Law Commission (170th and 244th), and the Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) have reiterated the same danger.

What Are the Root Causes of Criminalisation?

1. Politico-Criminal Nexus

Mutual dependence: criminals enter politics for immunity, politicians use them for funds and coercion.

2. “Winnability” Over Integrity

Data show candidates with criminal records have a 15.3 % success rate compared with only 4.4 % for clean candidates (ADR 2024). Parties prioritise electoral arithmetic over ethics.

3. High Cost of Elections

India’s election financing is opaque. Huge campaign expenses encourage the use of black money, often sourced from illegal activities.

4. Slow Judicial Process

Low conviction rates and decades-long trials make criminal charges almost irrelevant in political careers. Between 2009 and 2024, MPs with criminal cases increased by 55 %.

5. Identity Politics

Caste, religion, and regional loyalty often outweigh ethical considerations, making voters tolerant of criminal records.

6. Weak Enforcement

The ECI lacks power to reject candidates solely on pending criminal cases, since Article 102 and Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act (1951) require conviction, not mere charges, for disqualification.

What Are the Legal and Constitutional Safeguards?

Representation of the People Act (1951)

Section 8: Disqualifies convicted persons sentenced to ≥ 2 years.
Section 11: Allows the Election Commission to reduce or remove disqualification (e.g., Prem Singh Tamang case, 2019).
Section 33A & 33B: Mandate disclosure of criminal antecedents via self-sworn affidavits.

Recent Legislative Initiative – 130th Constitutional Amendment Bill (2025)

Proposes automatic removal of the Prime Minister, Chief Ministers, or Ministers detained for 30 consecutive days on offences punishable with ≥ 5 years imprisonment.
If passed, this would constitutionally embed accountability at the highest level.

What Has the Judiciary Done to Curb Criminalisation?

Union of India v. ADR (2002) – Directed the ECI to obtain and disclose candidates’ criminal, financial, and educational details.
Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) – Legislators convicted of crimes attracting ≥ 2 years imprisonment stand immediately disqualified.
Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2019) – Ordered political parties to publicise candidates’ criminal records on their websites and social media, explaining why such candidates were chosen.
Ashwini Upadhyay v. Union of India (2023) – Supreme Court directed lower courts to fast-track trials of MPs/MLAs and refrain from granting unnecessary adjournments.

While these rulings enhance transparency, implementation remains weak, as parties routinely publish perfunctory justifications like “candidate is popular locally.”

How Does Criminalisation Affect Governance and Policy-Making?

Legislative Quality Declines: Parliamentary debates focus less on policy and more on partisan politics.
Administrative Compromise: Officials fear political retaliation; corruption becomes routine.
Law and Order Deteriorates: Political patronage shields local mafias.
Resource Misallocation: Public funds diverted toward populist or self-serving schemes.
Ethical Governance Suffers: The “public service” ideal enshrined in the Constitutional morality (Dr B. R. Ambedkar’s vision) gets diluted.

What Do Data Trends Show Over Time?

Lok Sabha 2004: 24 % MPs with criminal cases
Lok Sabha 2014: 34 %
Lok Sabha 2019: 43 %
Lok Sabha 2024 (preliminary): ≈ 46 %

This consistent rise demonstrates normalisation of criminal politics, irrespective of party or ideology.

How Do Economic and Social Factors Reinforce the Problem?

Electoral Financing Gap: Absence of transparent public funding drives parties to rely on cash-rich candidates.
Socio-economic Inequality: Politics becomes a means for wealth accumulation rather than public service.
Weak Civic Culture: Lack of civic education leads voters to equate power with effectiveness.
Limited Media Scrutiny: Paid news and information overload blur factual reporting on criminal records.

How Does India Compare Globally?

While political corruption exists worldwide, the scale of criminal participation in India is exceptional.
Countries like the U.K., U.S., and Japan have stringent disqualification norms—convicted individuals rarely contest elections.
In contrast, India’s reliance on self-disclosure rather than disqualification allows accused persons to remain politically active until conviction.

What Are the Key Recommendations for Reform?

1. Fast-Track Courts for Political Cases

Following the Supreme Court’s directives, establish dedicated benches in each High Court to complete trials of MPs/MLAs within one year.

2. Stronger Penalties for False Affidavits

The 244th Law Commission Report (2014) suggested raising punishment for false declarations to at least two years and making it a disqualification ground.

3. Review of Section 11, RPA 1951

Prevent discretionary relaxation of disqualification for serious offences.

4. State Funding of Elections

Implement partial state funding with strict expenditure audits to reduce the need for black money.

5. Political Parties under RTI Act (2005)

Recognise them as public authorities, ensuring transparency in donations and candidate selection.

6. Strengthen Election Commission

Provide constitutional protection of tenure (similar to CAG) and power to deregister parties violating disclosure norms.

7. Voter Awareness and Ethical Literacy

Integrate ethics and civic education into school curricula; run voter awareness campaigns under SVEEP (SVEEP III) focusing on clean politics.

8. Mandatory Inner-Party Democracy

Enforce internal elections and audit of party accounts under Section 29C of RPA.

What Role Can Civil Society and Media Play?

Civil Society Organisations like ADR, PRS Legislative Research, and Lok Satta Movement must continue data-driven advocacy.
Investigative Journalism should focus on issue-based accountability rather than personality-based politics.
Digital Transparency Tools: Public dashboards linking affidavits with case status can empower informed voting.

Way Forward

The fight against criminalisation requires multi-pronged structural, legal, and ethical reforms:

Reform Political Finance: Introduce real-time public disclosure of all donations above ₹2,000.
Empower Institutions: Grant prosecutorial independence to investigative agencies.
Judicial Speed & Certainty: Special fast-track courts for elected representatives must be fully operationalised.
Electoral Awareness: Encourage citizens to reject tainted candidates regardless of caste or community.
Ethical Leadership Training: Parties should institutionalise ethics modules for representatives, similar to civil-service ethics courses.

The ADR 2025 report serves as a mirror to Indian democracy, exposing how wealth and criminality converge within political power. Despite landmark judgments and proposed constitutional amendments, the politico-criminal nexus continues because of systemic incentives: weak enforcement, opaque financing, and voter complicity.

Unless India undertakes holistic reforms—combining legal deterrence, electoral transparency, institutional independence, and ethical citizenship—the Republic risks normalising a state where law-breakers write the laws.
Only by reaffirming the constitutional ideals of justice, equality, and integrity can we restore faith in the democratic process and ensure that public office remains a trust, not a trophy.