The Door to Democracy: Disqualification, and Decriminalisation of Politics

INTRODUCTION
Elections in India have been recognised as an important element in the process of democracy,
representing a symbol of the freedom and liberty that the people enjoy1. For the purpose of
upholding the constitutional principles that promote this democracy, the responsibility lies for
ensuring that the political framework which exists does not fall prey to corruption 2, or any
other illegal activity. But regardless of all this, and such heavy mandate being prescribed by
the Constitution itself, criminalization has doubtlessly occupied a major space in the field of
the elections. The trend of criminalizing politics has been constantly rising, which definitely
takes a hit at the democratic principles and the fundamental rights of the people. Here, it is
the citizens who get affected, at the gain of those who are nothing to this country but simply a
liability.
What has been derived from democracy is the concept of rule of law, and the ability to hold
free elections, which enables the citizens to exercise their fundamental rights, and becomes
an expression of their will. Here, criminalization poses as a major threat to violating these
principles.
There have been prescribed qualifications, satisfying which a person is eligible to become a
Member of the State Legislative Assembly, or a Member of the Parliament, as seen in
Articles 843 and 1734 of the Constitution. The Constitution also prescribes certain
disqualifications, as seen under Articles 102(1)5 and 191(1)6.
It had been stated by Dr Rajendra Prasad, “If the people who are elected are capable and men
of character and integrity, then they would be able to make the best even of a defective
Constitution. If they are lacking in these, the Constitution cannot help the country.”
Democracy has been in the depth of the ideas based on which the Constitution had been
framed. One of the greatest achievements of this Constitution was giving the power of being
a stakeholder in the electoral or political process taking place in the country to every citizen,
through which it is believed that the “most-worthy” candidates get elected and are in a
position to give the citizens the rights that they are entitled to, and prevent the violation of the
same. This concept, has also earned the place of being a part of the “basic structure” of the
Indian Constitution. The Supreme Court had even held this to be unamendable, stating that
“It is beyond the pale of reasonable controversy that if there be any unamendable features of
the Constitution on the score that they form a part of the basic structure of Constitution, it is

1
1.Ahuja, Amit, and Susan Ostermann. "The Election Commission of India: Guardian of Democracy."
Guardians of Public Value. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2021. 37-62.
2
Shamshad, Ahmad, and Nafees Ahmad Ansari. "Corruption, Criminalisation of Politics and Development."
Indian Journal of Public Administration 54.4 (2008): 866-885.
3
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 84
4
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 173
5
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 102(1)
6
The Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 191(1)

1
that India is a Sovereign Democratic Republic.” 7 The importance of free and fair elections
could be seen in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill v. Chief Election Commissioner 8. For the
purpose of ensuring this, the Government had also come up with The Representation of the
People Act, 1951, which provided the qualifications and disqualifications for the membership
of the State Legislature and the Parliament.9
It would be quite ironical if those who make the law, or have the force of the law, themselves
break the law. This situation proves to be antithetical to what the framers had in mind while
drafting the Constitution, and definitely goes against the principles of democracy that have
been laid down. The same had even been stated by the Supreme Court in K Prabhakaran v P
Jayarajan.10
This research paper will focus on the prescribed disqualifications, as to in what circumstances
it becomes legitimate to prevent a person from holding elective office. It will analyse the
different grounds of disqualification, and whether knowledge about the antecedents of an
electoral candidate can be interpreted to be a fundamental right under Article 19(1)(g). The
same will be supported by important case laws and landmark judgements.

CRIMINALISATION OF POLITICS11
Growing over ages, crime has taken a lot of forms, the end result affecting the society, and its
people as a whole. This criminalisation has claimed its territory in the politics of India, too12.
Surveys and statistics prove that in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections, about forty three percent of
the members that were newly elected, had criminal cases registered against them. There was
also an increasing rate of criminalisation in the national elections starting from the year 2004,
where it begun from 24 percent, shot up to 33 percent in 2009, 34 percent during 2014, and a
43 percent in 201913.
In simple words, criminalisation of politics refers to the entering of criminals, into the field of
politics. This causes the people to have doubts and lose faith over the guidelines of
democracy that our country is built upon. It can affirmatively be said that the rising number
of criminals who enter as Members of either of the House, can ultimately lead to the
breakdown of the entire democratic system, and is capable of unleashing serious effects in the
democratic spirit that exists.

7
Indira Gandhi v. Raj Narain and Others, 1975 Supp SCC 1, 252 para 664
8
(1978) 1 SCC 405, 424
9
Singh, Ujjwal Kumar, and Anupama Roy. "Regulating the Electoral Domain: The Election Commission of
India." Indian Journal of Public Administration 64.3 (2018): 518-530.
10
(2005) 1 SCC 754, 780 para 54.
11
Kumar, B. Venkatesh. "Criminalisation of politics and election commission." Economic and Political Weekly
(2001): 2119-2121.
12
Bose, B. P. C., and MVS Koteswara Rao. "CRIMINALISATION OF POLITICS: NEED FOR
FUNDAMENTAL REFORM." The Indian Journal of Political Science (2005): 733-754.
13
Dubhashi, P. R. "Criminalisation of Politics—Beyond Vohra Committee Report." Indian Journal of Public
Administration 48.3 (2002): 456-458.

2
This is one of the highly grave problems faced by the democracy. It definitely proves to be
lethal to the electoral system in the country, where a system of good governance, the purity
and the sanctity of the electoral process, all seem to start disappearing, owing to the entry of
an increasing number of criminals at both the levels of Government. From a circumstance
where earlier criminals used to work only behind the scene of politics, now the system is
subject to electoral candidates who themselves have criminal records. This has a lot of
disastrous effects on the administration of law, order and justice in the country, as the
criminals were entitled to a direct power regime now, as a result of becoming ministers or
legislators.
The Supreme Court has also been trying to remove this absurdity, to reduce the number of
criminals entering in politics. In the case of K. Prabhakaran vs P. Jayarajan 14, the Court has
pointed out the need for having disqualifications, as seen under Section 8(3) of the
Representation of People Act, which aimed at preventing criminalisation of politics.
The judgement that was given in Union of India v Association for Democratic Reforms 15 by
the Supreme Court had been successful in ordering the Election Commission to disclose the
public background information relating to candidates running for office, including
information on their assets, criminal records, and educational background. This raised in the
minds of the people a considerable amount of concern about who was going to govern them.
Almost 18 percent of the candidates, at both the National and State Level Elections, had
criminal records against them, where the offences all included serious crimes such as bribery,
corruption, rape, murder, attempt to murder, which were all offences where conviction to
these crimes would lead to a minimum of five years of imprisonment, or higher levels of
punishment even. And these criminal records were not only confined to the election
candidates, but were found among the winners too.
The statistics of tainted politics was constantly on the rise. To make matters worse, there is
data to prove that even those who initially did not have any criminal record as such, after
entering into the political arena, got themselves involved in various criminal offences.
Therefore, this problem of criminalisation of politics was going out of hand and was
becoming something that was pervasive, resulting in the need for an immediate remedy.

PROVISIONS FOR DISQUALIFICATION

Speaking in terms of the law, there are provisions which will enable the prevention of entry
of criminals into politics, by way of prescription of certain disqualifications, satisfying which
the person is barred from contesting elections, or even occupying a seat either in the
Parliament, or an Assembly. As mentioned earlier, these can be seen in Articles 84, 102, 173
and 191.
The Parliament by way of the Representation of People Act has managed to provide further
qualifications and disqualifications for being a member of the Parliament, or the Legislative
14
AIR 2005 SC 688
15
(2002) 5 SCC 294

3
Assembly. Section 8(1) gives the offences, where the convictions of the same will result in
disqualifying the candidate, irrespective of the quantum of the punishment for that offence.
The clear message provided by RPA is that those who have criminal records against them, are
indeed unfit for the purpose of being a representative of the people, or even stand in elections.
Disqualification is such a restriction which was necessary to protect the moral principles of
the representative government, eliminating the criminal elements in the same.
On the contrary however, the actual purpose of these disqualifications has not been yet
realised. The problem essentially lies in the implementation of the same.

ARTICLE 19 – SECURING RIGHT TO INFORMATION

To choose something, knowledge about the particular thing is a prerequisite. As declared in
the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations, “Everyone has the right to
freedom of opinion and expression; which involves the right to receive and impart
information.” The withholding of information is nothing but the essence of tyranny.
Information gives solutions to problems in all aspects and fields; it is what even provides a
steadfast democracy. When actually put to use, information has the power to eliminate
problems such as ignorance, poverty and whatnot. One of the most important fields where
access to information is almost indispensable, is politics and democracy. Information has the
power to essentially bring about a significant change in the democratic institutions, and even
the governance of the country.16
In the case of Union of India v. Association for Democratic Reforms and Another, the
petitioner asks for “an informed right of voting for the voters of this country based on
information and knowledge about candidates seeking election to Parliament and State
Legislatures, as to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction directing respondent No. 2 to
put together the information on criminality of all the candidates for an election and make this
information available to public, and print and electronic media for wide dissemination.” In
the case of People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India17, it was given that only by
way of a universal adult suffrage, every individual voter was able to become a part of the
election process, exercising democracy, where he is entitled to know the antecedents of all
the candidates.
It has been mandated by Section 4 of the RPA that a candidate is to make “a declaration as to
whether any charge in respect of any offence referred to in Section 88 has been framed
against him by any Criminal Court.”18
Given the importance of information about the electoral candidates, the question arises as to
whether the knowledge about the antecedents of an electoral candidate can be held to be a
fundamental right under Article 19(1)(a)?

16
Association for Democratic ... vs Union of India (Uoi) And Anr., AIR 2001 Delhi 126, 2000 (57) DRJ 82
17
(1997) 1 SCC 301.
18
Representation of the People Act, 1951, § 4

4
In the 13th Lok Sabha Elections, 46 candidates, nominated by different political parties for
contesting elections, were found to have criminal records. Though various steps have been
taken to eject this issue, the demand which still exists is, whether the citizen casting the vote,
is entitled to a fundamental right to receive information about the criminal activities of the
candidate, and to have the knowledge of the necessary facts which will show the suitability or
competence of the candidate to be elected as a Parliamentarian or legislator, so that the
elector is in a position to cast an informed vote. Specifically speaking in circumstances where
the number of criminals entering politics has been constantly increasing, this is a matter of
high relevance, and something which seeks immediate addressal.
According to Article 19(1) of the Constitution, there is a right to freedom of speech and
expressed conferred on the citizens. This has been interpreted to include the right to
knowledge, and the right to receive information, with respect to matters regarding public
concern. In the case of State of U.P. v. Raj Narain 19, it was held that, “The people of this
country have a right to know every public act, everything that is done in a public way, by
their public functionaries. They are entitled to know the particulars of every public
transaction in all its bearing. The right to know, which is derived from the concept of freedom
of speech, though not absolute, is a factor which should make one wary, when secrecy is
claimed for transactions which can, at any rate, have no repercussion on public security.”
Secrecy was not something which was found in the interest of the public. Similarly in the
case of Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Govt. of India v. Cricket
Association of Bengal20, the Supreme Court had interpreted the scope of the Article to also
include the right to acquire information and to disseminate the same.
With respect to the effective and efficient flow of information that is deemed necessary for
the public, the State has an obligation to perform the same. When a voter is not in a position
to know the necessary details about the electoral candidates and is forced to vote without the
information, the citizen is essentially casting his vote in ignorance, and cannot take any
rationale or a suitable choice.
The right to receive information has immense importance with respect to elections. For the
purpose of having good governance, the best is to be chosen as representative for the people,
which cannot be achieved through hiding the basic facts about those contesting for elections.
A sense of equality is to be achieved by way of enlightening all about those with the future
prospect of governing us. A successful democracy can only be derived from an “aware
citizenry,” and the contrary is what makes democracy a travesty.
Democracy does not simply limit itself to let the citizens vote every five years and give
power to a set of people, absolutely based on no rationale. They are not merely passive
onlookers to the entire election process. Sound judgement on the part of the citizens is what
builds the foundation for a strong democracy, good governance and development of the
country. All this would be a mere result of giving the people their basic fundamental right of
educating and informing them who is fit and who is unfit to govern them for the next five

19
1975 AIR 865, 1975 SCR (3) 333
20
1995 AIR 1236, 1995 SCC (2) 161

5
years. The antecedents of a candidate are not something that are of the past that can be
ignored, it should be placed in the eyes of the public, as the running of the democracy with its
principles intact could only be done by those who are fit in the eyes of the law.
Therefore, if the need for decriminalisation of politics is really understood, then providing
this right to information about the candidates is definitely something that can bring purity into
the electoral process, removing the criminal elements present. This will also help in ensuring
the continual participation of the common people in the democratic process. Political parties
will start eliminating the members with criminal records in fear of the people having access
to this information. This is simply not just an idea without relevant consideration to prove the
same. The courts have continually seen the significance of informed decisions.
Hence, for the purpose of prevention of the violation of fundamental rights provided to
citizens, and for the political parties to act as a sentinel on the que vive for the people rather
than exploiting their basic rights, the right to information about the candidates’ criminal
records, and other relevant information which will assist in making a decision, must be
furnished accordingly21.

CAN THE COURTS LEGISLATE?

“Though criminalization in politics is a bitter manifest truth, which is a termite to the citadel
of democracy, be that as it may, the Court cannot make the law.”
This was what had been held by the five-judge constitution bench, that was headed by Justice
Dipak Misra.
In such grave and deteriorating situations, to solve the issues regarding criminalisation of
politics, could the Court essentially lay down disqualification of members beyond the scope
of Article 102(a) to (d)?
Initially, as seen in the case of Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India 22, the curbing of
criminalisation of politics was found to be necessary, especially in a country that brags about
its democratic principles to a large extent. Recognising the fundamental guidelines in
controlling criminal elements, interpretation was made as to provide the Court the power of
“judicial statesmanship.” But though the Court was found to be the “final arbiter of the
Constitution,” the Court could not essentially ignore the concepts of separation of power, and
hence, it could only give suggestions for a legislation, and not produce one itself. Attorney
General K.K. Venugopal refuted the submissions and urged that the Parliament to pass a
legislation and can only recommend. It was quite clear on the Court’s side that it could not
legislate.

21
Bhat, Waseem Ahmad. "Parliamentary Disqualification on Conviction: Issues and Remedies." GNLU JL Dev.
& Pol. 6 (2016): 155.
22
(2019) 3 SCC 224

6
Article 102(1)(e) states that, “Disqualifications for membership―(1) A person shall be
disqualified for being chosen as, and for being, a member of either House of Parliament, if he
is so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.”
Article 191(1)(e) provides that, “A person shall be disqualified for being chosen as, and for
being, a member of the Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of a State if he is so
disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament.”
Here, both of these provide that for disqualification, the law is to be made only by the
Parliament. This was even seen in the case of Lily Thomas v Union of India 23, where it was
given that, “Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution, on the other hand, have
conferred specific powers on Parliament to make law providing disqualifications for
membership of either House of Parliament or Legislative Assembly or Legislative Council of
the State other than those specified in sub.”
UPHOLDING SEPARATION OF POWERS
According to the Supreme Court, it could not simply carry over itself the power of making
laws, even though it had the duty to protect the ethics of the Constitution. Any authority
could not carry out something for which power is not validated by the Constitution of India.
The Court could only provide recommendations as mentioned earlier, not make laws on its
own.
What makes the Courts distinct from the Parliament is with respect to its functional and
structural set-up.24 With respect to the issue of the Farm Laws, the Supreme Court had
continued to stay the implementation, but did not actually provide any legal or constitutional
base for the same. Quite contrarily, it had intervened as a “self-appointed mediator” and
ended up violating the structural separation of powers in India. What makes it dangerous here
is that the Court had completely ignored its important constitutional function of an
independent judicial review. This act of the Court is not limited to the Farm Laws. This is
what threatens the foundations of separation of power. Similar is the case here when the
Court tries to go beyond Article 102 of the Constitution. It violates all the concepts that the
framers of the Constitution had in mind.
It is said that if the Court violated the boundaries of functional separation of powers, it was
bound to fail, as the court is institutionally not equipped to legislate. And violating the
structural separation of powers concentrates power in the judiciary, which will lead to a
dictatorial instead of an impartial court. Despite its good intention to mediate during a crisis,
the court must control these impulses to govern or legislate from the bench.
Does the concept of separation of powers actually stand in the way of criminalisation of
politics, and the Court? It is not denied that provisions of the Constitution mandate that the
Court not legislate. As seen in Divisional Manager Aravali Golf Course vs Chander Haas 25,
23
2000 (2) ALD Cri 686, 2000 (1) ALT Cri 363, 2001 (1) BLJR 499, 2000 CriLJ 2433, II (2000) DMC 1 SC, JT
2000 (5) SC 617, 2000 (4) SCALE 176, (2000) 6 SCC 224, 2000 (2) UJ 1113 SC
24
Wadje, Ashok. "Criminalization of Politics: Protagonist Judiciary & Election Commission of India."
Available at SSRN 2523350 (2014).
25
2007(14) SCALE1, (2008)1SCC683

7
there is the element of separation of power existing between the three organs, where one
cannot encroach the domain of the other. But though in ordinary cases the judges may not
legislate, it becomes necessary for the Courts at exceptional times to direct orders, similar to
what was seen in Joginder Kumar vs State of U. P 26. For instance, the right to privacy is
nowhere mentioned in the Constitution of India. Yet, in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy vs Union of
India27, a nine-judge bench had stated that it was a part of Article 21, under the right to life
and personal liberty.
Even in the United States, in particular states, women were not permitted legally to undergo
termination of their pregnancies. But in Roe vs Wade 28, it was held by the United States
Supreme court that these were not valid anymore, and the laws were struck down. With
respect to this, it can be held that the Court can indeed pass legislations if the circumstance
demands. If the judicial legislation is used for the purpose of furthering the mandates of the
Constitution, to give a new and necessary approach to it, for example interpreting the Articles
14 and 21 to have a much wider scope, this can be valid. Article 21 is now an umbrella of
quite a number of rights to be claimed under it. The judicial activism here is not left
unguided, and is not a place for the Court to explore. The decisions made by the Court are
more of having a jurisprudential base.
When a legal norm is urgently needed for the smooth and efficient running of the government
and the society, the Court’s decision could be used. Criminalisation of politics is not a
temporary, short-term problem, which can easily be resolved within a short period of time. It
is an issue that affects all citizens of the country, violating their basic, fundamental rights.
This is a problem that definitely calls for some large-scale and immediate remedy to it.
Therefore, where the legislature is not in a position to solve the issue, the Court can definitely
come in. One of the most important examples for this argument is the Supreme Court
judgement which struck down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code. This also at times helps
in addressing the gaps between bringing in and implementing, another example being D.
Velusamy vs D. Patchaiammal29.

FINDING SOLUTIONS TO THE MORAL TURPITUDE

Criminalisation of politics is an issue which has been causing serious injuries to the
democratic principles, and has been an important topic of discussion for the Election
Commission since the year 1998. It is indeed an undesirable, and also humiliating situation to
provide the law-making and other decisions onto the hands of criminals, further under the
protection of the police. Taking into consideration the many other required changes in the
electoral system, this problem should definitely be one of those which are given the utmost
importance and priority, as it stands in demolishing the very grounds of democracy, which
was not something that was earned in a simple process. Forgetting the laurels given for
achieving democracy, what becomes necessary is to take into consideration the present
26
1994 AIR 1349, 1994 SCC (4) 260
27
(2017) 10 SCC 1
28
410 U.S. 113 (1973)
29
(2010) 10 S.C.C. 469

8
situation which is a matter of real concern, as it emerges as a looming danger to destroy the
very roots of free and fair elections. Immediate steps are to be taken to address this issue, or
else what can be visualised is the collapsing of the entire democratic system30.
There have been attempts to make right these issues, but none of these really were successful
in bringing about any sort of a positive change. 31 Some such as the anti-defection law, and
reducing the minimum age for voting can really be appreciated. But otherwise, for the
purpose of decriminalising politics, despite efforts, the situation only keeps getting worse32.
Based on the recommendations by various Committees, changes could be brought in. First,
Section 125 of the RPA is to take a more stringent note, prescribing a higher punishment for
the concealment or misrepresentation of facts or evidence. Rules need to be brought in as to
prevent tainted candidates to even be a part of the political parties. It is bad enough that there
is no minimum educational qualification requirement for someone who is entrusted with
governing the entire population of the country and make decisions. An amendment is
required in the RPA as to debar those who have against them heinous crimes, to contest in
elections. The fast-track courts could be used for the purpose for dealing with cases of
political criminalisation. This is because if speedy trial was not offered to these cases, this
would prove to be in favour of the politicians, as they have the power to essentially delay the
judicial proceedings. Accountability and intra-party democracy are to be inscribed in the
political parties, as prescribed by the Constitution. Lastly, awareness is to be spread about
NOTA. This, though a last resort option, is indeed an effective way to at least prevent
criminals from becoming the winners of an election.
More transparency is a desired factor with respect to campaign financing, which will
definitely help in decreasing the entry of those with a criminal background. The Election
Commission is to grow stronger and more stringent, by blacklisting criminals, taking
measures against those with criminal records, and should ensure a broader governance for the
voters to make a wise and shrewd choice.

CONCLUSION
The fate and destiny of a country, is to a large extent dependent on the political system of the
country. It has been rightly stated by Abraham Lincoln that, “Democracy is a government of
the people, by the people and for the people.” Contrary to this, corruption and criminal
activities has taken over the entire of politics, making very little room for democracy to
uphold its principles and maintain its integrity. It is true that we sow what we reap. By

30
Chopra, Joginder Kumar. Politics of Election Reforms in India. Mittal Publications, 1989.
31
Saroha, Jai Kumar. "Electoral Reforms in India: Issues and Challenges." Research Journal of Philosophy and
Social Sciences 43.1 (2017): 270-276.
32
Deva, Surya. "Democracy and elections in India: Reviewing the role of the Election Commission and the
courts." Judicial Review of Elections in Asia. Routledge, 2016. 38-56.

9
choosing tainted political parties, the government also ends up losing its morals and gets
subject to degradation.
What has been found from this paper is that to make an educated choice, the knowledge
about those contesting is necessary. Therefore, owing to this, the right to information
becomes a fundamental right in our democracy, under Article 19. Secondly, though it might
be said that separation of power might be an obstacle, exceptional situations like these, where
there is a paucity of democracy, the Courts should be able to legislate and make decisions.
After all, it comes down to the complex question of how in a land that celebrates democracy,
it is possible for political parties to field candidates with criminal antecedents.
In 2020, the Supreme Court had passed a judgement on criminalisation of politics. This was
implemented in the Bihar 2020 elections. It had held that, “the reasons for such selection, as
also as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as
candidates. If a political party fails to comply, it would be in contempt of this Court’s
orders/directions.” This was the first time the political party had publicly owned up to its
criminalisation of politics.
The country is currently subject to a lot of crises, the prominent ones being Covid-19
pandemic, economic recession, etc. In addition to these problems is that of criminalisation of
politics, which has been an “silent ever-present” issue, resulting in deteriorating politics. The
crises mentioned above require a type of governance which is steady, reliable, and most-
importantly, free of the “criminal virus infection.” Simply qualifying the age and nationality
requirements is not sufficient, if capability is all we want in those who govern us, even the
British could still be ruling over India. But that is not what the country needs. Bad
governance leads to making bad choices, where the criminals involved start acting for their
self-interests. A current example of this self-interest and bad governance theory is the
elections conducted in 2021, where due to a variety of reasons such as election rallies and no
proper surveillance, the Covid-19 virus has had a rapid increase in the number of people
affected and dying every day. The rate of those affected has seen a large rise, where there
were absolutely no restrictions, and the political leaders themselves not wearing masks,
despite it being mandatory. The Madras High Court had even stated that the Election
Commission “should be put up on murder charges…for being the most irresponsible
institution.”
The way to regain the flourishing of democracy in the country is to remove this crude, crime-
infested problem, that a lot of countries have overcome a long time ago. The basic structure of
the society is to regain its power, and Indian citizens are to see the value of this democracy and
enjoy its fruits. This duty of bringing back life to democratic principles can’t be simply thrust
upon the state institutions, but the common people, the citizens, are too an indispensable part of
this process. The important electoral reforms are to be put into effect. A strong political will is to
be brought into effect by the government to decriminalize the entire political system by taking
stringent measures as well as by enactment of required legislation. Supreme Court is to hold free
and fair elections, which are an essential part of the basic structure of the Constitution, assisting
in breaking the criminal-political nexus, resulting in a healthy democratic country, for it had
been stated that “this malignancy was not incurable.”

10
11