Key Stakeholders Endorse Bill to Decriminalize Indian Politics, Boost Accountability

NEW DELHI – A significant stride towards electoral reform and enhancing political integrity in India has been reported, with key stakeholders expressing widespread support for a bill aimed at decriminalizing politics. Aparajita Sarangi, the chairman of the joint parliamentary committee examining the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, confirmed that there has been no resistance to the intent of the proposed legislation. Addressing a press conference, Sarangi highlighted that various stakeholders have not only backed the bill but have also provided written comments and suggestions, signaling a constructive engagement in the legislative process.

Currently under scrutiny by a 30-member joint committee of Parliament, the Constitution (130th Amendment) Bill, 2025, proposes a critical change: the automatic removal of a Prime Minister, Chief Minister, or any other minister from office if they are arrested and detained for 30 consecutive days for an alleged offense punishable with imprisonment of at least five years. This provision marks a departure from existing laws, which primarily focus on disqualification from being a Member of Parliament or State Legislature upon conviction, rather than removal from a ministerial post.

The issue of criminalization in politics has been a persistent concern in India, impacting governance, public trust, and the very fabric of democracy. Reports from organizations like the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) consistently highlight the alarming number of legislators at both central and state levels with declared criminal cases, including serious offenses. For instance, in 2024, approximately 43% of sitting MPs and around 30% of sitting MLAs had declared criminal charges. The 'winnability' factor, often attributed to the nexus between criminals and politicians, where muscle and money power play a significant role in election outcomes, has been identified as a major driver for political parties fielding candidates with criminal backgrounds.

Past judicial interventions have attempted to address this challenge. Landmark Supreme Court judgments, such as Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018), mandated political parties to disclose candidates' criminal backgrounds and justify their selection, calling for a 'zero tolerance' approach. The Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) ruling stipulated the immediate disqualification of convicted lawmakers. However, despite these directives and recommendations from numerous electoral reform committees—like the Tarkunde Committee (1974), Goswami Committee (1990), and the Law Commission Reports (1999, 2015)—the political will to fully implement these reforms has often been seen as lacking.

The current bill seeks to tighten the accountability mechanisms by directly targeting the continuation of ministers in office while facing serious criminal allegations and prolonged detention. This is a significant step, as the existing Representation of the People Act, 1951 (RPA), largely deals with disqualification post-conviction and provides a six-year disqualification period after release from a two-year or more imprisonment sentence. The Election Commission of India has also previously recommended amending the RPA to bar individuals against whom charges have been framed for offenses punishable with five years or more imprisonment from contesting elections.

Stakeholder engagement is increasingly recognized as a crucial component in Indian public policy-making, ensuring that diverse perspectives are considered for more robust and effective legislation. The consultative process undertaken by Sarangi's committee, involving various groups, underscores this principle. These stakeholders typically include legal experts, civil society organizations, academicians, and political party representatives, all contributing to the discourse on electoral and political reforms. Their input is vital to craft legislation that is not only legally sound but also practically implementable and broadly accepted across the political spectrum.

The bill's introduction, therefore, represents an attempt to strengthen institutional integrity and public confidence in India's democratic process. While concerns about potential misuse of such provisions to target political opponents have been raised in the past, particularly regarding the power of the central government over state leaders, the current consensus among stakeholders suggests a shared commitment to the broader goal of reducing criminal influence in politics. The ongoing deliberations and the incorporation of stakeholder feedback are expected to refine the bill, ensuring its effectiveness in fostering a cleaner political environment and upholding the sanctity of public office in India.