Criminalization in Politics

Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume IV Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878
CRIMINALIZATION IN POLITICS
Sampat Singh, LLM (Criminal Law), Sardar Patel University of Police Security and
Criminal Justice, Jodhpur
ABSTRACT
Criminalization in politics is a big concern in current scenario and it is

expanding , I choose this topic because after independence when the literacy
rate of our country was not so good and communication technology was also
not so developed but still people elected good leaders as compared to current
scenario ,the leader they choose had good character, respect in society and
had a profound profession like doctors, lawyers and farmer but in current
scenario when people are educated and aware still they choose leaders with
criminal background why?. In this research I found some shocking fact. In
my research I found that still people vote the leaders of their caste and
religion despite of having criminal background. In this 48.7 % people
admitted that they voted the candidate of their caste and 36.5 people have
voted the leader with criminal background. In my research I found that 29.3%
people do not check the criminal background of political leader. In India we
have The Representation of people Act and Indian penal code which punish
the criminal political leaders and prevent them from contesting election but
80.3% people still believe that lack of good laws is the cause of
criminalization in politics. In 2014 election 34% of elected member of Lok
S Sabha had criminal record where as in 2019 it reached to 43% nearly 26%
enhancement.1
1
https://adrindia.org/content/lok-sabha-elections-2019
Page: 1
1. INTRODUCTION
Criminalization in politics can be seen in two different ways first one is entry of criminals in
state legislature and Lok Sabha and second one is involvement of criminal either directly or
indirectly like booth capturing, contract killing of oppositions leaders, illegally financing the
leaders during election and threating people for casting their vote in favor of particular leader.
criminalization in any field is dangerous to the society whether it is in bureaucracy, politics,

police and judiciary because it destroys the main structure and function of any institution.
Indian is democratic and republic nation and politics is the main core of democracy, where
people choose their leaders by casting their vote. It is expected that the leaders who are running
the country must be honest, hardworking and of good character. In India after independence
conditions were not good, we had so many problems like poverty, low living standard,
illiteracy, lack of resources and countries like England and America mocked us and called us
the country of snake charming but we had good leaders like sardar Vallabhbhai Patel, Pandit
Jawaharlal Nehru, Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, Mahatma Gandhi, Lal Bahadur Shastri, Dr.
Rajendra Prasad and many more who served the nation till their last breath and transformed
the India. Their contribution made India a largest democratic nation in the world. This
everything becomes possible because of their dedication, hard work and good character. Today
when we see the condition of current political leaders, it is even not the 1% of then political
leaders, nearly 43% of political leaders elected for Lok Sabha 2019 having criminal record by
this we can see that how deep the roots of criminalization in politics are webbed. Despite the
best intentions of the drafters of the Constitution and the Members of Parliament at the onset
of the Indian Republic, the fear of a nexus between crime and politics was widely expressed
from the first general election itself in 19522. In present scenario we have to made much more
effective majors to curb the criminalization in politics because if it will continue to grow like
this then it can cause serious damage to our democratic value and development of country.
2. EXTENT OF CRIMINALIZATION IN ELECTION IN INDIA
During election in India report regarding criminal incidents can be easily seen in every
newspaper. political parties sponsor the candidate having criminal record and surprisingly most
2
PC Rajagopalachari in Kishor Gandhi, India’s Date with Destiny: Ranbir Singh Chowdhary Felicitation
Volume, 1st Ed., p. 133 (Allied Publishers, 2006.
Page: 2
of them win the election.
Political parties give ticket to criminal in only two situations first one is when party need money
and muscle power and second one is when the candidate have influence over a particular area
where his chances of winning is maximum.
In year 1997, 40 members of Lok Sabha had criminal record and 700 member of state
legislatives assemblies out of 4072 against whom cases were registered and trails were
pending3.
Share of leader with criminal back ground was continuously increasing in every session of
elections. In Lok Sabha elections 2004 the share of leaders with criminal background was
8.88%, which increased in 2009 elections and reached to 14.8% which later in 2014 it touched
to 34% and in 2019 Lok Sabha it was remained just little bit less to hit half century.
Mostly the political leaders are rich who have criminal background and won the election.
Political parties support the criminal directly or indirectly just for their benefit.
Mukjtar Ansari contested election from Mau seat in Uttar Pradesh and also won the election in
2007 as an independent candidate while many criminal cases were pending against in him and
he was in jail.
Sahabuddin: Against him 34 serious crimes were pending and he was sentenced to life
imprisonment in the case of kidnapping with intend to murder but still in the H.D Gowda
government his named was given as a Minister of states for the Home Ministry in 1996.
Raja Bhaiya: He is associated with the Samajwadi party in Uttar Pradesh, he has a rich and
royal family back ground. However, he was declared criminal under the POTA (prevention of
terrorist activities) Act, Still he is considered as most powerful leader in east UP. People afraid
to speak against him because he has high political links and also have a gang of goons.
Shibu Soren: He is from Jharkhand and served has the chief minister of Jharkhand and was
found guilty of murder of his secretary.
3
3 B. Venkatesh Kumar, “Critical Issues in Electoral Reforms”, The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol.
63, No. 1, pp. 73-88, p. 78 (March 2002)
Page: 3
Atiq Ahmat: He belongs to Uttar Pradesh and was the member of Lok Sabha from the Phulpur
constituency in Uttar Pradesh. He was framed under 35 criminal cases including heinous crimes
like murder but in 2009 he was allowed to contest in general election since he is yet to be
convicted in any case.
State Assembly Election 20224
CRIMINAL AND FINANCIAL DETAIL OF MINISTERS
Ministers with Uttarakhand Uttar Pradesh Goa Punjab Manipur
Criminal cases 0% 22(49%) 4(44%) 7(64%) 0%
Serious criminal 0% 20(44%) 3(33%) 4(36%) 0%

cases
Crorepati 100% 39(87%) 9(100%) 9(82%) 100%
Total analysis 9/9 45/53 9/9 11/11 6/6
4
https://adrindia.org/content/state-assembly-elections-2022
Page: 4
STATE ASEMBLY ELECTION 20215
STATE-WISE CRIMINAL AND FINANCIAL DETAIL OF MINISTERS
MINISTERS WEST BENGAL ASSAM KERALA TAMIL NADU PONDUCHERRY
WITH
Criminal cases 142(49%) 34(27%) 96(71%) 134(60%) 13(43%)
Serious criminal 113(39%) 28(22%) 37(27%) 57(25%) 6(20%)

cases
Crorepati 158(54%) 85(67%) 75(55%) 192(86%) 25(83%)
STATE ASEMBLIES6
Total MLA analyzed: 3980
With criminal Serious criminal Crorepati Women MLAs Illiterate - 10th pass MLAs
cases
cases
1610(40%) 1047(26%) 3100(78%) 338(8%) 754(19%)
5
https://adrindia.org/content/state-assembly-election-2021
6
https://adrindia.org/research-and-report/election-watch#state-assemblies
Page: 5
17TH LOK SABHA 20197
Total MPs analyzed:542
With criminal With serious Crorepati MPs Women MPs Illiterate-10th

cases criminal cases pass
232(43%) 157(29%) 477(88%) 79(15%) 60(11%)
3. LAWS DEALING WITH CRIMINALIZATION
In India there are various statute and laws which punish and prevent the criminalization in
politics like –
The Representation of people Act, 1951
The Prevention of corruption Act,19888
Indian Penal code,1860 (chapter IX A of IPC)9
The Central Vigilance Act,200310
The Right to Information Act,200511
4. COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION TO CONTROL CRIMINALIZATION IN

POLITICS
In order to curb the criminalization in politics many steps were taken from time to time. Various
committees were formed and commissions were formed to find the reasons and solutions to
7
https://adrindia.org/content/lok-sabha-elections-2019
8
https://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1988-49.pdf
9
https://www.latestlaws.com/bare-acts/central-acts-rules/ipc-chapter-9a-of-offences-relating-to-elections
10
https://cvc.gov.in/sites/default/files/cvcact_0.pdf
11
https://dopt.gov.in/sites/default/files/CompendiumIRDivision_Latest.pdf
Page: 6
control criminalization.
They submitted their report to government and recommended various steps to stop
criminalization in politics. Politicians and criminals have a big nexus to commit the crime
directly or indirectly. Criminal gangs help politicians during election by giving money or
muscle power to the political leaders.
4.1 Vohra committee report
This committee was headed by former Indian Union Home secretary N.N Vohra in 1993.12
It analyzed the criminalization in politics and nexus between politicians, criminals and
bureaucrats. It studies the various gangs running parallel to government.
The committee had concluded that agencies, including CBI, IB, RAW, had unanimously
expressed their opinion that the criminal network was virtually running a parallel government.
4.2 Goswami committee13
Goswami committee on electoral reforms in 1990, highlighted the crippling effect of money
and muscle power in India.
4.3 The National Commission to Review the working of Constitution14
National commission to review working of constitution recommended that a person against

whom the charges are frame by the court in the offences having punishment more than five
years should be prohibited to contest election of parliament and state legislature after the one
year from the framing of charges by court by making amendment in Representation of People
Act,1951. Further it suggested that such person should be held disqualified until the decision
of trial comes.
12
VOHRA COMMITTEE REPORT_0.pdf (adrindia.org)
13
https://adrindia.org/sites/default/files/Dinesh%20Goswami%20Report%20on%20Electoral%20Reforms.pdf
14
Report of the National Commission to Review the Working of the Constitution (31st March, 2002), Available
at www.legalaffairs.gov.in/ncrwc-repor t, Viewed on 10th February, 2019
Page: 7
It is suggested that if a person is convicted in an offence by court for six months or more, then
such person should be stand disqualified until the completion of such imprisonment and after
completion of such imprisonment should further be disqualified for next six years.
This commission also recommended that no political party should sponsor the candidate
against whom charges are framed by criminal court or is convicted of any criminal act, if any
party violates these rules, then it should be deregistered or derecognized.
4.4 Second Administrative Reform Commission
Under the chairmanship of shri Veerappan Moily second administrative reform commission
was constituted in 2005 for draft a blueprint for revamping the public administrative system.
The commission suggested to amend the section 8 of the Representative of the People Act,1951
to disallow the candidate alleged of grave and heinous offences and corrupt.15
4.5 Law Commission of India Report
It supported and suggested that section 8 of the Representative of people Act,1951 should be
continue 16and a new section 8B should be created for the dealing with electoral offences which
are grave and heinous in nature. Under the purposed section framing of charges should be
ground of disqualification and disqualification should not exceed five years or till the acquittal
of the person.
4.6 Verma Committee Report on Amendment of Criminal Law
Justice Verma Committee was constituted to recommend amendments to the Criminal Law so
as to provide for quicker trial and enhanced punishment for criminals accused of committing
sexual assault against women. The Committee submitted its report on January 23, 2013.
On December 23, 2012 a three-member Committee headed by Justice J.S. Verma, former
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, was constituted to recommend amendments to the Criminal
Law so as to provide for quicker trial and enhanced punishment for criminals accused of
15
https://darpg.gov.in/sites/default/files/ethics4.pdf
16
8 Law Commission of India, Report No. 244, “Electoral Reforms”, pp. 1-269, p. 53 (March 2015.
Page: 8
committing sexual assault against women. The other members on the Seth, former judge of
17
the High Court and Gopal Subramanyam, former Solicitor General of India.
The Committee submitted its report on January 23, 2013. It made recommendations on laws
related to rape, sexual harassment, trafficking, child sexual abuse, medical examination of
victims, police, electoral and educational reforms. We summarise the key recommendations
of the Committee.
The Committee recommended the amendment of the Representation of People Act,

1951. Currently, the Act provides for disqualification of candidates for crimes related to
terrorism, untouchability, secularism, fairness of elections, sati and dowry. The Committee
was of the opinion that filing of charge sheet and cognizance by the Court was sufficient for
disqualification of a candidate under the Act. It further recommended that candidates should
be disqualified for committing sexual offences.18
5. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA
1. The Commission proposes that making of any false statement or declaration before the
Election Commission, Chief Electoral Officer, District Election Officer, Presiding Officer or
any authority appointed under The Representation of the People Act, 1951, in connection with
any electoral matter should be an electoral offence under the said Act, along the lines of section
31 of The Representation of the People Act, 1950.
2. On account of increasing incidents of misuse of money in elections, the Commission is of

the considered view that there should be a provision in The Representation of the People Act,
1951 to deal with such cases. Therefore, the commission proposes that on the lines of section
58A, there should be a specific provision enabling the Commission to take appropriate action
including countermanding of election in the event of incidents of bribery of electors in a
constituency, if in the opinion of the Commission such incidents are likely to vitiate the
election.
17
https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/justice-verma-committee-report-
summary#:~:text=Justice%20Verma%20Committee%20was%20constituted,report%20on%20January%2023%2
C%202013.
18
https://prsindia.org/policy/report-summaries/justice-verma-committee-report-
summary#:~:text=Justice%20Verma%20Committee%20was%20constituted,report%20on%20January%2023%2
C%202013.
Page: 9
3. Persons charged with cognisable offences shall be de-barred from contesting in the elections,
at the stage when the charges are framed by the competent court provided the offence is
punishable by imprisonment of at least 5 years, and the case is led at least 6 months prior to the
election in question.
4.The proposal of the Commission is that Section 171B and 171E of the Code of Criminal
Procedure (CRPC), 1973, shall be amended immediately to include bribery as a cognisable
offence with minimum 2 years of Imprisonment.19
6. SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS
6.1 People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and Anr. V. Union of India (UOI) and
Anr.20
In this case Supreme Court gave a landmark judgement and considered as a milestone in India
political reforms. Supreme Court said that every candidate who is contesting an election of
parliament, state legislature or any Municipal corporation has to produce their criminal record,
financial record and education qualification along with their nomination form.
6.2 Ramesh Dalaal v. Union of India ,200521
In this case Honourable Supreme Court held that sitting member of Parliament and state
Legislative are also subject to disqualification if they are convicted or sentenced not less than
two years by court of law.
6.3 Lily Thomas v. Union of India, 2000
In this Honourable Supreme Court held that section 8(4) of The Representation of People Act
,1951 is unconstitutional which allow the Member of Parliament and State Legislative who are
convicted to continue their office till the appeal against such conviction is disposed of.
6.4 Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and others, 201522
19
https://eci.gov.in/files/file/9236-proposed-election-reforms/
20
(2002) 5 SCC 294
21
https://main.sci.gov.in/judgments
22
Krishnamoorthy vs Sivakumar on 5 February, 2015 (indiankanoon.org)
Page: 10
Supreme court observed that the crucial recognised ideal which is need to be realised is
abolishment of criminalization of politics and corruption in public life concluded that “unveil
of criminal antecedents of candidate, especially, concerned to serious or Heinous offences or
offences related to moral turpitude or corruption at the time of nomination is mandatory. Such
declaration makes voters to make good choice and to choose good leader.
7. RESEARCH ANALYSIS
My question for the research is that why the criminalization in politics exists and why it is
growing tremendously, what are the factors that people choose leaders with criminal
background instead of good leader despite of having high awareness, literacy and
communication technology among people as compared to our previous generation. If we see
people after independence choose good leaders having good character and profound profession
like Advocate, doctors and Farmers instead of criminal despite of having low literacy rate, lack
of awareness and lack of communication technology.
If we see logically then criminalization in politics should be decrease because people are
getting more aware and educated but here its contradictory, it should be taken more seriously.
I had prepared a questionnaire for my survey according to need of my research, which is

discussed below along with public opinion.
Link To Questionnaire/Survey:
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/15izZhTmo4ry7cU-sBpmc2ilACakrPZ-
GVJ2zWTmQScc/edit#responses
Total Number of Responses-118
Page: 11
In my survey 57.6% people, who responded are between the age group of 18-25 and 22%
belongs to age group 26-35 and 20.3% people belong to age group 35 and above. More than
half of the responses are from young population which will further decide the direction of
politics in India.
Out of 118 people 15.3% are not registered as voter even though they are above the age of 18
years. This is also a big problem which allow the criminals in politics because if these 15.3%
people had their vote and have voted for good candidate then the chances of winning of leaders
with criminal background become almost zero because 15.3% change is not small. People have
to be more aware and should get them registered as voter if they are above the age of 18 years.
Page: 12
In this 27.1% people have not voted in any election and 72.5% people have voted. If we
calculate the percentage of voter who have not voted despite of having registered voter is
11.8%. we calculated it by subtracting the percentage of people who are not registered that is
15.3% in above question from total percentage of people who have not voted in this question
(27.1-15.3=11.8). This is not a small amount, that 11.8% of people are not voting during
election, they don’t have any right to criticise the political leaders with criminal background
because they didn’t make any effort to eliminate theses criminal from coming into power. If
these voters start voting for the good leaders, then situation can be altered.
Checking criminal background before voting is also sign of awareness among people. In my
poll 57.8% people are checking criminal background before voting whereas 29.3% people are
not checking and 12.9% are may be checking criminal background. Majority of voters checks
criminal background but it does not sure the awareness among public because those who are
Page: 13
not checking it are also not less. There may be different reasons for not checking criminal
background of candidate like people do not know from where and how to check this data. Some
people may be not interested in background of political leaders because they trust blindly on
the promises made by political leader during election. For decreasing the criminalization in
politics people should first check the background of political leader or candidate to whom they
want to select their leader because a wise and honest man can take the society or nation on the
path of development and can ensure the safe society.
Voting for candidate having criminal background is a direct and major factor which allow them
to make direct entry into the government. 63.5% people have not voted a candidate having
criminal back ground while 36.5% have voted to a candidate who had criminal background.
Knowingly voting for candidate having criminal background is not less than an offence against
the society and it increase the enthusiasm of criminal to take entry in politics. While voting
people should consider the welfare of society and nation, should abstain from voting for a
candidate having criminal background. Ultimately everything depends upon the selection of
people, if such a huge number of people will vote in favour of them then we cannot expect the
crime free society because a person who himself is a criminal cannot give us a crime free
society.
Page: 14
What we choose that we get. In my survey large number of people admitted that they like
leaders with criminal background, I don’t know which kind of liking these people have.31.4%
people like the leaders with criminal back ground where as 68.6% do not like leaders with
criminal background. Criminalization in politics is existing because of liking of criminal
leaders because if these 31.4% people have voted in favour of any criminal leader, then chances
of his winning are high.
This question is the zest of my research, that what are causes behind selecting the leaders with
criminal back ground. In this 40.7% people admitted that because of same caste they vote for
that leader. 17.7people vote the leader having criminal background because he/she belongs to
their religion.
Page: 15
31% believe that if a candidate is famous/ celebrity then people vote for him despite of having
criminal background. 10.6 people vote for criminal because of fear. So, it is clear that caste is
a major factor in Indian politics even when it comes to caste criminal record of any candidate
doesn’t matter.
Action of police and other government agencies on political leaders having criminal
background seems nowhere.
People satisfied with the action of police and other agencies on criminal political leaders is
23.5% whereas unsatisfied percentage is much bigger which is 76.5%. It is also the main factor
that criminals are taking entries in politics because they know that it works as a shield against
action of police or other agencies for their past sins.
Page: 16
Awareness is biggest weapon against any evil. In my research 56.4% are aware about the laws
to prevent criminalization in politics but a big part of society is not aware that is 43.6%.
I found that 80.3% public is not satisfied with the current laws to prevent criminalization in
politics. They think that there is lack of good laws which promote criminalization in politics
while 19.7% are disagree with it.
Page: 17
This is very important question because it will unveil the role of political parties in
criminalization of politics. In my research 94% people believe that political parties protect the
criminal leaders of their party and only 6% people don’t believe that political parties protect
criminal leaders.
Page: 18
In this research 44.9% people believe that 76-100% political leaders are corrupt and 44.9%
people believe that 51-75% political leaders are corrupt and 5.9% people believe that 26-50%
political leaders are corrupt and 4.2% people believe that 10-25% political leaders are corrupt.
It is public who decide the winner in election and 91.5% people believe that public is
responsible for criminalization in politics and only 8.5% people are disagree with it. Ultimately
it is public who select the leaders by voting if they don’t vote in favour of criminals then
political parties itself would not give them ticket.
Page: 19
As in previous question I asked whether public is responsible for criminalization in politics or

not then 91.5% people admitted that yes. Now in this question I asked how public is responsible
so, 55.9% people believe that public knowingly vote for leaders with criminal background and
22.9%% people believe that they do not have another good choice and 21.2% believe that
public is not aware of criminal background of political leader.
seed is sown by political parties by giving ticket to candidate having criminal background only
then after it comes to public. 94.9% people believe that political parties are responsible for
criminalization in politics and only 5.1% people are disagreeing with it.
In previous question we asked whether political parties are responsible for criminalization in
politics than 94.9% people agreed on this so, now how they are responsible. 57.3 % people
Page: 20
believe that by giving tickets to criminal and 42.7% people believe that by taking help from
criminal gang during election.
In previous question 57.7% people were agrees on that the political parties are responsible for
criminalization in politics by giving tickets to leaders with criminal background now the
question arise that why political parties give ticket to criminals. In this 53.5% people thinks
that political parties give tickets to criminal for money which they need during election and
25.4% thinks that it’s to create fear among public and 21.1% people thinks that for use of
muscles power during election.
Page: 21
Complete ban on contesting election by criminal is supported by 90.5% People where 9.5%
people are not in the favour of complete ban on criminals. Means large part of society is in the
favour of complete ban on political leaders having criminal background to contest election.
8. Conclusion
Criminalization in politics in politics is increased since after 1970 and in my Research, I found
different dimensions of criminalization in politics. People vote to political leaders who belongs
to their caste and religion despite of having criminal record because for them caste and religions
is much more important than an honest and hardworking leader.
Another factor for which people vote for them is non availability of another option means
people have to choose snake from snakes which is less poisonous. Biggest thing is that people
know about criminal background of political leaders still they choose to vote them as I found
in my research 55.9% people knowingly vote.
One more serious fact is that people who are registered as voter are not voting during election,
it also opens the door for criminals where they can easily win.
Know it comes to political parties, 94.9%% people thinks that political parties are responsible
for criminalization in politics by giving tickets to candidate having criminal background. Major
reason behind giving tickets to criminal is for money as it is admitted by 53.5% people.
When it comes to laws people believe that there is lack of good laws which promote the
criminalization in politics and if we talk about current laws, then it prevents a person from
contesting election only after he/she is convicted but not preventing before whether multiple
cases have been registered or charge framed against a leader.
People are not happy or satisfied by the action of police against the leaders having criminal
background as it is admitted by 76.7% people in my survey.
If we want to have a developed society or nation then we have to choose good leaders and have
to come over all the above mention factors because an honest, hardworking and good leader
can make it possible.
Page: 22

Criminalization in Politics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminalization in Politics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research Volume IV Issue V | ISSN: 2582-8878

Criminalization in politics is a big concern in current scenario and it is

criminalization in any field is dangerous to the society whether it is in bureaucracy, politics,

2. EXTENT OF CRIMINALIZATION IN ELECTION IN INDIA

of them win the election.

State Assembly Election 20224

CRIMINAL AND FINANCIAL DETAIL OF MINISTERS

Ministers with Uttarakhand Uttar Pradesh Goa Punjab Manipur

Criminal cases 0% 22(49%) 4(44%) 7(64%) 0%

Serious criminal 0% 20(44%) 3(33%) 4(36%) 0%

Crorepati 100% 39(87%) 9(100%) 9(82%) 100%

Total analysis 9/9 45/53 9/9 11/11 6/6

STATE ASEMBLY ELECTION 20215

STATE-WISE CRIMINAL AND FINANCIAL DETAIL OF MINISTERS

MINISTERS WEST BENGAL ASSAM KERALA TAMIL NADU PONDUCHERRY

Criminal cases 142(49%) 34(27%) 96(71%) 134(60%) 13(43%)

Serious criminal 113(39%) 28(22%) 37(27%) 57(25%) 6(20%)

Crorepati 158(54%) 85(67%) 75(55%) 192(86%) 25(83%)

Total MLA analyzed: 3980

1610(40%) 1047(26%) 3100(78%) 338(8%) 754(19%)

17TH LOK SABHA 20197

Total MPs analyzed:542

With criminal With serious Crorepati MPs Women MPs Illiterate-10th

232(43%) 157(29%) 477(88%) 79(15%) 60(11%)

3. LAWS DEALING WITH CRIMINALIZATION

The Representation of people Act, 1951

The Prevention of corruption Act,19888

Indian Penal code,1860 (chapter IX A of IPC)9

The Central Vigilance Act,200310

The Right to Information Act,200511

4. COMMITTEE AND COMMISSION TO CONTROL CRIMINALIZATION IN

4.1 Vohra committee report

4.2 Goswami committee13

4.3 The National Commission to Review the working of Constitution14

National commission to review working of constitution recommended that a person against

4.4 Second Administrative Reform Commission

4.5 Law Commission of India Report

4.6 Verma Committee Report on Amendment of Criminal Law

The Committee recommended the amendment of the Representation of People Act,

5. ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA

2. On account of increasing incidents of misuse of money in elections, the Commission is of

6. SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENTS

6.2 Ramesh Dalaal v. Union of India ,200521

6.3 Lily Thomas v. Union of India, 2000

6.4 Krishnamoorthy v. Sivakumar and others, 201522

I had prepared a questionnaire for my survey according to need of my research, which is

Total Number of Responses-118

As in previous question I asked whether public is responsible for criminalization in politics or

You might also like