Scribd
Upload
19 views3 pages

CRPC Word Presentation

The Supreme Court of India issued guidelines to address the growing criminalization of politics in India. Politicians with criminal backgrounds were seeking election, which could harm public interests. The court emphasized the need to avoid criminal candidates and protect innocent candidates' opportunities. It reiterated prior directions that political parties must disclose candidates' criminal histories and justify selecting them over clean candidates. The parties must publish criminal histories in newspapers and social media before elections. The court has the power to issue directions under Articles 129 and 142 to curb criminalization, without exceeding its constitutional role.

Uploaded by

Akshat Malviya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
19 views3 pages

CRPC Word Presentation

The Supreme Court of India issued guidelines to address the growing criminalization of politics in India. Politicians with criminal backgrounds were seeking election, which could harm public interests. The court emphasized the need to avoid criminal candidates and protect innocent candidates' opportunities. It reiterated prior directions that political parties must disclose candidates' criminal histories and justify selecting them over clean candidates. The parties must publish criminal histories in newspapers and social media before elections. The court has the power to issue directions under Articles 129 and 142 to curb criminalization, without exceeding its constitutional role.

Uploaded by

Akshat Malviya
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

INTRODUCTION

Before getting in to the depth of our case it is necessary to know the root cause of the
case and problems associated it. Major Root of our case lies in matter of criminalization
of politics. When it comes to political issues we are well aware of the fact that in the
world of politics there is no white surface to walk. The concept of criminalization of
politics is rising day by day and with the increase in these aspects in order to cope up
with the coming consequence and issues in political field the Supreme Court of India is
empowered to issue various guidelines under Article 142 and Article 129 for stoppage of
involving politicians having criminal records to participate in elections as from the view
that such criminal candidature allowance can be detrimental to public interest. The role
of Supreme Court is to avoid candidates having criminal background over candidates
having clean background. Current case is the picture as to how our Supreme court has
dealt with these affairs and how the Fundamental rights differs from statutory rights. In
the present case commentary, the Supreme Court of India has emphasized widely on
growing criminalization of politics which is deleterious to the welfare of public it not only
damages the root cause of our political system but also restricts the innocent candidates
to get opportunity over criminal candidates. The Apex court have analyzed these issues
and for the betterment of political health issued various guidelines.

FACTS OF THE CASE


The present case is relating to the concept which highlights criminalization of politics in
India. Criminalization of politics refers to an act whereby person having criminal records
in past wants to enter in to politics. Which is detrimental to public interest as criminals
enter in to political world by the support of politicians and it gives political parties undue
benefits at large. The case focuses on disregard of directions issued by Supreme Court
of India in case of Public Interest Foundation and ors vs Union of India also known as
"Electoral Disqualification Case". Wherein two petitions were filed by BJP Leader
Ashwini Upadhyay and an NGO - Public Interest Foundation. The intention of bringing
this petition was to seek directions from Supreme Court of India regarding prohibition of
criminals from contesting the polls and getting elected as Member of Parliament.
JUDGEMENT
On February 13, 2020.
Bench: Hon'ble justice R.F- Nariman, Hon'able justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon'able
Justice Ramasubramanian.
The Supreme Court once taking under consideration the school of thought of Colorable
Legislation, the principle of Separation of Powers and scrutinizing the shortcoming of
the court to issue official document of writ of mandamus to the Election Commissioner
regarding the extension of law of disqualification for the explanation of a candidate
having criminal background, the court came to the conclusion that the facility of
constructing laws can't be extended to the judiciary. However the court has power to
issue directions or tips as secured below Article 129 and Article 142 of the Constitution.
With this the Supreme Court of India in order to cure ongoing disease laid down
following additional directions with created a protection layer to the political system. So
the guidelines referred in this case of Public Interest Foundation and ors vs Union of
India reiterated the current case of Rambabu Singh Thakur vs Sunil Arora.
It shall be the duty of the central and state-level political parties to furnish elaborate info
regarding the criminal antecedents of the chosen candidates. Further, the knowledge
regarding the criminal antecedents should contain- the character of offence, what
charges are framed against them, what's the case variety, during which court the case is
filed, etc. what is more, the organization shall make a case for the explanations on why
the candidate with criminal antecedents was elite over the qualified candidate with no
criminal antecedents. The reason for such choice shall be primarily based upon the
deserving, qualification and action of the candidate instead of mere "win ability" at the
voters' polls. The elaborate data concerning the criminal antecedents of the candidates
shall wide be revealed within the native further as national newspaper alongside the
message on the social media platforms as well as Twitter, Facebook, etc. This
information shall be published in either of the two-time frames, whichever is earlier
within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or within not less than 2 weeks before
the first date of filing for nomination.
The political party concerned shall submit a report of compliance with the Election
Commission by following all the aforesaid directions and such submission has to be
done within 72 hours of the selection of the concerned candidate.

VIEW POINT
It is prudent to know that one having background of criminal cases pertaining to Rape, Murder
etc cannot be given a chance to be part of justice as they had already set their criminal positions
are bound to be punished instead of giving them further chance to proceed with other criminal
activities. Though the "Doctrine of Innocence" works on the mechanism that no one is guilty
unless convicted but the fact that cannot be denied is that a person on which several criminal
complaints are filled and who is under charged cannot be stated as an innocent in common
parlance.
And thus, it is essential to differentiate the meaning of "Innocence" by not just relying on book
definitions. Directions issued by the apex court would not completely swap the criminalization of
politics but these guidelines would be an effective mechanism to resolve this issues. Further,
Article 142 does not additional words in existing law but still Supreme Court is empowered
under Article 129 and Article 142 it keep public interest as top priority without breaking
constitutional validity.

Section 9 of the Representation of People Act, 1951.

9. Power of Election Commission to maintain Delimitation Order up-to-date.


9A. Power of Election Commission to determine the constituencies to be
reserved for Scheduled Tribes in certain States.

colorable legislation

The maxim doctrine of colourable legislation means what cannot be done directly cannot also be done
indirectly. This doctrine is applied when legislature tries to accomplish something in a backhanded
way when it can't do it straightforwardly.

Article 129 of Indian constitution


Article 129 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to be a court of record. In other
words, the Supreme Court shall be a court of record and shall have all the powers of such a court,
including the power to punish for contempt of itself. Further Reading: Supreme Court of India.

Article 142, Draft Constitution, 1948

It stated that any decree or order passed by the Supreme Court to do


complete justice was enforceable throughout the territory of India. The Draft
Article was accepted without debate and adopted by the Assembly on 27th
May 1949.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy