Democracy Enchained: A Contextual Analysis of Criminalisation of Politics in India

Image Credits-Indian Law watch

Introduction

“Politics is like a snake that has coiled around us, and we have no other choice but to wrestle with it.” The echo of these words of Mahatma Gandhi sounds as relevant today as it was in the past. We cannot run away from politics; it shapes every aspect of life. But what happens when politics turns into a refuge for powerful goons and Baahubalis? They seek power not as a means to serve, but as a goal in itself. A recent report by the Association for Democratic Reforms published on 22^nd March 2025, shows that 1,862 of the 4,092 MLAs, around 45%, have criminal charges. Additionally, 1,205 MLAs (29%) face serious criminal charges. These include charges such as rape, murder, and kidnapping.

Discussions about criminals in politics are not new. They go back into history. The Vohra Committee, instituted in 1993, was the first official group to address the criminalisation of politics. The committee noted a hidden link between underworld goons and politics. Over 31 years have passed since the Vohra Committee gave its report, but not much has changed. Today, power-hungry criminals not only survive but also thrive, hiding behind the cloak of political righteousness.

From Crime to Cabinet: Criminals in the Realm of Politics

"Dirty Politics" is a common topic in many Indian homes. Teenagers are often warned against getting involved in college politics. Working professionals also hear about the downsides of politics. But why does politics have such a negative public perception? The answer lies in politics. Criminals want to gain power, so they try to enter elections. It is no surprise that political parties welcome these criminals. They see them as a steady and lasting source of funds for their campaigns.

The Association for Democratic Reforms reports that 28 of 71 ministers in the Union Council of Ministers of 2024 have declared criminal charges. That makes up a total of 39%. Additionally, 19 ministers (27%) face serious criminal charges. Yet, this invasion of criminals into politics is not something new. Politicians and criminals have always kept their relationship strong.

To corroborate the said claims, it is necessary to cite a few politicians who have such a notorious profile.

1. According to reports from The Hindu and India Today, Pappu Yadav, an MP from Purnia, Bihar, has faced more than 30 criminal cases over the course of his political career. He also spent nearly 12 years in prison in connection with the 1998 murder of CPI (M) leader Ajit Sarkar, before being acquitted by the Patna High Court in 2013.

2. Brij Bhushan Sharan Singh, a six-time MP from Uttar Pradesh and former president of the Wrestling Federation of India, has been named in over 10 criminal cases, including those related to serious charges, as per the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR). More recently, he came under national scrutiny following allegations of sexual harassment made by female wrestlers, a controversy that has been widely reported by The Indian Express and BBC News.

3. The ADR’s 2024 report on Chief Ministers revealed that Telangana Chief Minister Revanth Reddy declared 89 pending criminal cases in his election affidavit, making him one of the Indian CMs with the highest number of such cases.

These examples represent a fraction of politicians in India who are involved in criminal activities. Many politicians, though discredited, still hold positions in central, state, and village politics. Panchayat elections are often rigged. Local hoodlums capture polling booths and intimidate voters. They use forceful tactics to assert their political power in the village or district.

This part of the article looks at three key questions. 

Why do these criminals enter politics?

Why are they so graciously embraced by political parties?

Why do people vote for them?

Criminals in Politics: An Everlasting Trend

Milan Vaishnav employs Oliver E. Williamson’s concept of vertical integration to explain how criminals enter into politics. He defined it as “the substitution of internal organization for market exchange.” In simpler terms, it means merging two firms at different production levels to secure external resources. Example: A driving school that begins producing its own cars is an example of vertical integration.

Williamson states that when markets are efficient, firms do not need to integrate operations. However, if the market fails to provide necessary services, a firm might then choose to produce in-house. This means they would vertically integrate the tasks that were once outsourced by other ancillary industries.

This pattern unfolded in Indian politics.

After the first three elections in India, the Indian National Congress began to show cracks in its once strong image. The Congress party's strength used to be its plurality. This later became the chief cause for its electoral setbacks. Indira Gandhi's first term saw political fragmentation, which caused intense competition in elections. Also, the Congress and other parties, like the Communist Party, faced organizational wreckage. In elections, the local goons used to help these political parties, and in return, these parties offered political protection. As political fragmentation and competition grew, criminals became insecure. They became worried about the next government, which increased their fear. This fear pushed more criminals into politics.

Why Do Political Parties Welcome Such Criminals?

An analysis of the Format C7 Report  explains why political parties choose candidates with criminal cases, especially in Maharashtra, Jharkhand, and Delhi elections. The parties have not shared clear reasons for choosing many politicians with criminal backgrounds. The few reasons they provide are vague and similar. They often claim things like, “the allegations are politically motivated,” or “the allegations lack substance.” They also say, “the candidate is popular in his area.” A quick look at these reasons shows that they lack substance. Political parties seem to release them for show, with no real intent behind them.

Many scholars, like Milan Vaishnav, have studied this issue. They believe that political parties often accept criminal politicians. Tough competition and high election costs make parties pick candidates with money. These wealthy candidates can finance their own campaigns and provide financial support to the party. This way, the party can support less wealthy but promising candidates in their districts.

Political parties often place such criminal candidates in tough constituencies. These areas have high competition and weak party support. This strategy feels like a gamble. They do it to keep their finances strong and maintain control in those regions.

Why Do Voters Choose “Them”?

In 2012, the National Institute of Public Finance and Policy and the University of Warwick released a paper which looked at how voters react to candidates with criminal records. The paper's conclusion finds that voters punish candidates with known criminal records. But these candidates can often succeed if there are more candidates like them in the area or if they use money and influence as leverage.

Clientelism too has become one of the reasons why voters choose such politicians who have declared criminal records. In simple words, clientelism means a mutual and hierarchical relationship between a patron and his clients. In the sphere of politics, it generally means a relationship between the public and a certain authority, like MLAs or MPs who govern them.

The relationship between these two agents, in recent years, has transformed a lot and has become much more commercial than it ever was. By employing the word commercial here, it does not mean the sale and purchase of votes, however, it does happen, but here, the word clientelism has much more nuanced implications. For example, candidates with criminal records often try to show themselves as the modern-day Robin Hood, and they project such an image by engaging in populist works, which, in the mind of common folks, generate an image of a patron who is powerful and will help them in getting their work done. In recent times, the wave of populism has affected democracies worldwide. Populist leaders often bypass institutional checks and appeal directly to mass sentiment, portraying themselves as the voice of the people against the elite. Such acts not only cause the election of such candidates but also get them re-elected.

In a survey by the Association for Democratic Reforms on July 11, 2017, in Gujarat, 79.66% of people said that many accused politicians face frivolous charges. This helps explain why they still get votes. Also, 70.21% believe that these candidates can still get their work done, even with criminal accusations.

It is time for us, as voters, to look at the bigger picture. We need to rise above our personal interests and break the chain of electing politicians with criminal antecedens.

Image Credits-Mindstick

The Remedial Evolution of Criminality in Politics

The Vohra Committee (1993) first identified the issue of politics being linked to crime. It looked at the rising connection between politicians and criminals. It was set up after the Bombay Blast (1993) and was headed by the then Home Secretary N.N. Vohra.

The committee recognised the growing linkage and, to curb such a malicious relationship, advised setting up a nodal agency handled by the Home Secretary, assisted by selected Ministry officers, for the collection and compilation of all information received from various branches such as IB, CBI, R&AW, and other agencies under the Department of Revenue. The nodal agency would work under extreme secrecy. The government, too, had to carefully consider and prescribe the operations investigated by the concerned agency.

The 170th Law Commission built on these preventive measures. In its 1999 report, it suggested that candidates should be barred from running in elections if serious charges are framed against them. The commission stressed the need for transparency. It advised that candidates must disclose their assets and those of their spouses. Candidates should also fully reveal their criminal records. The committee saw it as an “urgent and crying necessity.” But the government has not yet enforced these recommendations.

A series of judicial interventions directed towards the decriminalisation of politics marked the 2000s.

In 2002, the Supreme Court of India, in Association for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002), advised the Election Commission to secure information regarding the criminal cases against the candidates, their assets, and his/her level of education, and any other information pertaining to the candidate’s capacity. The Supreme Court also expressed its concern regarding the entry of criminals into politics and lawbreakers becoming lawmakers.

In 2013, the Supreme Court in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) questioned the validity of subsection 4 of section 8 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951, which gave immunity to sitting MPs and MLAs from conviction . The court used the doctrine of severability and declared that the subsection is ultra vires, but the rest of the section stays intact.

The Supreme Court, further in Public Interest Foundation v. The Union of India directed the Election Commission and political parties to improve transparency in candidate filing. This way, people can become more informed and vote wisely. But again, parties faltered in fulfilling these conditions. The court reiterated the directions in the case of Rambabu Singh Thakur v. Sunil Arora.

The Apex Court has issued several directions about decriminalising politics. However, these steps have not changed the complacent attitude of political parties. More needs to be done to make these parties aware of the repercussions that their acts will leave in the democratic framework of the country. The people too need to become more politically active to break this chain of criminality in politics.

Conclusion

In India, politics often mixes with crime, money, and power. This connection is strong and deeply rooted. Years after the Vohra Committee's warning, little has changed. Reports, ideas of the Law Commission, and Supreme Court’s actions have shown little impact. Political parties continue to support candidates with serious charges, prioritising money and influence over integrity. Many voters focus on short-term benefits or local favours. They often ignore criminal records, which helps this cycle continue. Weak enforcement, political expediency, and limited public awareness perpetuate the system. Reform needs strong action. This includes blocking candidates with serious charges. It requires clear disclosure of criminal and financial records. Also, it gives independents agencies real autonomy. But legal measures alone will not suffice. A shift in voter mindset, away from personal gain towards the collective good, is essential. Without this, India’s democracy risks being governed by those who break the law rather than uphold it.

---

By Samrat Pratap Singh

Samrat Pratap Singh is a law student at Shankar Rao Chavan Law College, Pune. His interests span constitutional law, governance, public policy, and the relationship between law and society. He actively engages with themes of democratic accountability, institutional reform, and the evolving challenges of Indian politics.