Introduction

The case of Brajesh Singh v. Sunil Arora And Others (2021 INSC 388) addresses the critical issue of criminalization in Indian politics. Filed as a contempt petition, the petitioner, an advocate and court officer, highlighted the non-compliance of several political parties with the Supreme Court's directives mandating the disclosure of criminal antecedents of electoral candidates. The petitioner accused the Election Commission of India (ECI) and various political parties of flouting court orders aimed at enhancing electoral transparency and informing voters.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of India, in its judgment dated August 10, 2021, held multiple political parties in contempt for failing to adhere to prior directives mandating the disclosure of candidates' criminal backgrounds. The Court emphasized the rising trend of criminalization in politics and the necessity of informed voting. While acknowledging the limitations of judicial intervention in legislative matters, the Court directed the ECI to enhance transparency through digital platforms and awareness campaigns. Punitive fines were imposed on non-compliant parties, underscoring the Court's commitment to uphold electoral integrity.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior landmark cases that shaped the Court's stance on electoral reforms:

• Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2019) 3 SCC 224: A Constitution Bench directed political parties to disclose criminal antecedents of candidates, emphasizing voters' rights to information.
• Assn. for Democratic Reforms v. Union of India (2002) 5 SCC 294: The Court mandated the disclosure of candidates' assets, qualifications, and criminal cases to ensure informed voting.
• PUCL v. Union of India (2003) 4 SCC 399: Addressed the invalidity of legislative amendments that undermined judicial directives on electoral transparency.
• Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) 7 SCC 653: Affirmed Parliament's exclusive authority to legislate on disqualification grounds for electoral candidates.

Legal Reasoning

The Court underscored the importance of separation of powers, reiterating that while the judiciary can issue directives to ensure electoral integrity, it cannot legislate. The judgment emphasized:

• The rising incidence of candidates with criminal backgrounds and its detrimental impact on democracy.
• The necessity for political parties to provide transparent reasons for selecting candidates with criminal antecedents, beyond mere "winnability."
• The role of the ECI in enforcing court directives without overstepping its statutory bounds.
• The importance of leveraging technology and public awareness to enhance voters' access to candidate information.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in curbing the criminalization of politics by holding political parties accountable for non-compliance with transparency directives. The potential impacts include:

• Enhanced transparency in electoral processes, empowering voters with comprehensive candidate information.
• Increased accountability of political parties to adhere to judicial directives, thereby promoting cleaner politics.
• Potential legislative impetus for Parliament to enact more robust laws against the criminalization of politics.
• Strengthened norms for the ECI to utilize digital platforms and public campaigns for disseminating candidate information.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Contempt of Court: A legal finding that someone has disobeyed or been disrespectful towards the authority, justice, and dignity of the court.
• Separation of Powers: A doctrine that divides the responsibilities of government among different branches to prevent abuse of power.
• Criminalization of Politics: The involvement of individuals with criminal backgrounds in political roles, potentially undermining democratic processes.
• Affidavit: A written statement confirmed by oath or affirmation, for use as evidence in court.
• Electoral Disqualifications: Conditions under which individuals are barred from contesting elections, often due to criminal convictions.
• Article 324 of the Constitution: Grants the Election Commission of India the power to conduct free and fair elections.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court's judgment in Brajesh Singh v. Sunil Arora And Others marks a significant step towards purifying Indian politics by enforcing transparency and accountability. By holding political parties accountable for disclosing criminal antecedents of their candidates, the Court ensures that voters are well-informed, thereby strengthening democratic processes. While the judiciary affirmed its role in issuing directives to uphold electoral integrity, it also underscored the importance of legislative action to address the root causes of criminalization in politics. This judgment serves as a clarion call for political parties, the ECI, and the legislature to collaborate in fostering a cleaner and more accountable political landscape.