1    

REPORTABLE  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA  

INHERENT JURISDICTION  

CONTEMPT PET. (C) NO. 2192 OF 2018  

IN  

W.P. (C) No. 536 OF 2011    

RAMBABU SINGH THAKUR      …Petitioner  

Versus  

SUNIL ARORA & ORS.            …Respondents  

 WITH  

CONTEMPT PET. (C) NO. 428 OF 2019                                              IN  

W.P(C) NO. 536 OF 2011                                              &  

CONTEMPT PET. (C) NO. 464 OF 2019                                              IN  

W.P(C) NO. 536 OF 2011    

J U D G M E N T  

R.F. Nariman, J.  

1. This contempt petition raises grave issues regarding the criminalisation of  

politics in India and brings to our attention a disregard of the directions of  

a Constitution Bench of this Court in Public Interest Foundation and Ors.  

v. Union of India and Anr. (2019) 3 SCC 224.

2    

2. In this judgment, this Court was cognisant of the increasing criminalisation  

of politics in India and the lack of information about such criminalisation  

amongst the citizenry. In order to remedy this information gap, this Court  

issued the following directions:  

“116. Keeping the aforesaid in view, we think it appropriate to  issue the following directions which are in accord with the  decisions of this Court:  

116.1. Each contesting candidate shall fill up the form as  provided by the Election Commission and the form must contain  all the particulars as required therein.  

116.2. It shall state, in bold letters, with regard to the criminal  cases pending against the candidate.  

116.3. If a candidate is contesting an election on the ticket of a  particular party, he/she is required to inform the party about the  criminal cases pending against him/her.  

116.4. The political party concerned shall be obligated to put up  on its website the aforesaid information pertaining to candidates  having criminal antecedents.  

116.5. The candidate as well as the political party concerned  shall issue a declaration in the widely circulated newspapers in  the locality about the antecedents of the candidate and also give  wide publicity in the electronic media. When we say wide  publicity, we mean that the same shall be done at least thrice  after filing of the nomination papers.”    

3. On a perusal of the documents placed on record and after submissions of  

counsel, it appears that over the last four general elections, there has  

been an alarming increase in the incidence of criminals in politics. In 2004,  

24% of the Members of Parliament had criminal cases pending against  

them; in 2009, that went up to 30%; in 2014 to 34%; and in 2019 as many  

as 43% of MPs had criminal cases pending against them.

3    

4. We have also noted that the political parties offer no explanation as to why  

candidates with pending criminal cases are selected as candidates in the  

first place. We therefore issue the following directions in exercise of our  

constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of  

India:  

1) It shall be mandatory for political parties [at the Central and  

State election level] to upload on their website detailed  

information regarding individuals with pending criminal  

cases (including the nature of the offences, and relevant  

particulars such as whether charges have been framed,  

the concerned Court, the case number etc.) who have  

been selected as candidates, along with the reasons for  

such selection, as also as to why other individuals without  

criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates.  

2) The reasons as to selection shall be with reference to the  

qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate  

concerned, and not mere “winnability” at the polls.  

3) This information shall also be published in:  

(a) One local vernacular newspaper and one national  

newspaper;  

(b) On the official social media platforms of the political  

party, including Facebook & Twitter.  

4) These details shall be published within 48 hours of the  

selection of the candidate or not less than two weeks

4    

before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is  

earlier.  

5) The political party concerned shall then submit a report of  

compliance with these directions with the Election  

Commission within 72 hours of the selection of the said  

candidate.  

6) If a political party fails to submit such compliance report  

with the Election Commission, the Election Commission  

shall bring such non-compliance by the political party  

concerned to the notice of the Supreme Court as being in  

contempt of this Court’s orders/directions.  

5. With these directions, these Contempt Petitions are accordingly disposed  

of.  

                                                                                                                                       ..……………………J.  

       (R.F. Nariman)         

 ..……………………J.          (S. Ravindra Bhat)   

New Delhi;  February 13, 2020.