"Mandatory disclosure of criminal antecedents has improved voter information but not reduced criminalisation of politics." Critically examine.

In Union of India v. ADR (2002), the Supreme Court held that a voter's right to know a candidate's criminal antecedents flows from Article 19(1)(a). Parliament then inserted Section 33-A into the RP Act, which made disclosure through the Form 26 affidavit mandatory [1]. Two decades later, the statement largely holds: voters know more, but the results have not changed.

How disclosure improved voter information

• Standardised disclosure: candidates must declare pending cases in which charges are framed or cognizance taken, and past convictions [1].
• Wider publicity: after Public Interest Foundation (2018), candidates and parties must publicise criminal records in the media. The ECI issued formats to enforce this [2].
• Party accountability: in 2020 the Supreme Court required parties to publish their reasons for fielding candidates with criminal cases [4].
• Trackable data: affidavits let analysts follow the trend across elections [3].

Why criminalisation persists

• Worsening trend: Lok Sabha MPs with declared cases rose from 23% (2004) to 46% (2024). That is 251 of 543 MPs, and 27 of them had been convicted [3].
• Disclosure is not disqualification: a pending case does not bar anyone from contesting. Only conviction does.
• Party supply side: 39% of BJP winners and 49% of Congress winners declared cases [3]. With few clean options on the ballot, "winnability", money and muscle power outweigh information.
• Weak deterrence: a false affidavit attracts at most six months' imprisonment under Section 125-A [5].

Critical appraisal

• The critique is partly overstated. Disclosure was designed to inform, not cleanse [1]. Judging it only by who wins mixes up two separate goals.
• Information has limits. Voters may see cases as politically motivated, and caste or patronage loyalties can override what they learn.
• Strict scrutiny carries a risk. Frivolous private complaints, if left undisclosed, can lead Returning Officers to reject nominations, as in a recent Rajya Sabha contest from Madhya Pradesh.

Way forward

• Adopt the Law Commission's 244th Report: disqualify candidates once charges are framed for offences punishable with five years or more, with a one-year safeguard against motivated cases [5].
• Raise the Section 125-A penalty to a minimum of two years and make false affidavits a corrupt practice [5].
• Allow a one-week gap between nominations and scrutiny, and fast-track trials of legislators [5].

Disclosure has made voters better informed. However, information cannot fix a problem that comes from party nominations and slow trials. Pairing transparency with calibrated disqualification and stronger party accountability would help achieve the Constitution's vision of free, fair and clean elections.