Expressing concern over “alarming” rise in contestants with criminal antecedents in polls, the Supreme Court on Thursday said it would obligatory for political parties to furnish reasons for choosing such candidates in Lok Sabha and assembly elections.
A bench comprising Justices Rohington F Nariman, S Ravindra Bhat noted all such information should be put in the public domain within 48 hours of selection of these candidates or within a reasonable time before the filing of nomination.
Exercising its extraordinary powers under articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution, the court asked that the parties concerned to provide details of such contestants to the Election Commission of India within 72 hours of their selection.
The bench was hearing a batch of contempt petitions, including one moved by advocate and BJP member Ashwini Upadhyay.
The petitions submitted that political parties were not making public details about candidates with criminal antecedent, although an order of the apex court to this effect existed.
In his contempt plea, Upadhyay sought decriminalisation of politics by disallowing political parties from giving tickets to candidates having criminal background.
During today’s proceedings, the court said it appears that in the last four-year general elections, there was an increase in people with criminal history in polls without any explanation.
It said the academic qualification and other details about such candidates should also be put up in the public domain, including through Twitter, Facebook and newspapers.
The bench noted that if a political party fails to abide by the directions, the poll panel will be free to approach the apex court for contempt.
It said the petitioners, in their contempt pleas, raised “grave” issues with regard to criminal elements in politics.
In its directions, the court said the political parties would have furnish justification for choosing candidates with criminal background as against why those without such history could not be selected.
Winnability of such candidates cannot be referred to by the parties as only justification, the court added.