LAWMAKERS & LAWBREAKERS

The Electoral Bonds disclosures have already revealed which parties command the deepest financial reservoirs — and therefore possess the firepower to outspend and outmanoeuvre poorer rivals. For smaller parties and independents, entering an election is no longer an affordable democratic exercise.Yet the crores visibly spent during campaigns rarely appear in the expenditure affidavits filed with the Election Commission

Bihar’s 2025 mandate has done more than elect a new Assembly; to me, it has revealed a national democratic malady in its starkest form. I am sure it forces India to confront an uncomfortable truth: our electoral system is increasingly rewarding exactly the kind of candidates the Constitution hoped to keep out. The sheer volume of compromised legislators emerging from this election is not a local aberration but a symptom of a deep, structural malfunction that is weakening the republic.

The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has laid out the facts with chilling clarity: more than half of Bihar’s newly elected MLAs face criminal cases, and the proportion of serious charges remains alarmingly high. At the same time, the wealth concentration in the House has exploded, with crorepati representation touching ninety percent.

In a single snapshot, the state exposes how criminality, money and political power have fused into a self-reinforcing ecosystem — one where the ability to mobilise muscle, deploy cadres and marshal vast financial resources has become the primary, cynical qualification for public office.

I see this as a crisis not confined to a single state. Bihar’s verdict, though regionally specific, is a microcosm of a national ailment that is eroding public trust and diminishing governance. Out of 243 winners, 130 have declared criminal cases and 102 face serious charges. These include six booked for murder, nineteen for attempt to murder and nine for crimes against women.

This is not the profile of a healthy legislature; it is a portrait of a political culture that has normalised the presence of accused individuals at the highest levels of public life. Parties across the spectrum — including the BJP, JD(U) and RJD — have returned candidates with grave charges, while smaller parties often exhibit an even more alarming proportion of tainted winners.

The wealth profile tells an equally troubling story. The average assets of winning candidates have doubled since the previous election, reaching Rs9.02 crore. This speaks volumes about the increasingly affluent, money-drenched character of India’s political class.

Look at the way electioneering has morphed into a luxury enterprise: helicopters, convoys, high-end digital campaigns, mass printing and advertising blitzes now define the modern campaign. The Electoral Bonds disclosures have already revealed which parties command the deepest financial reservoirs — and therefore possess the firepower to outspend and outmanoeuvre poorer rivals. For smaller parties and independents, entering an election is no longer an affordable democratic exercise.

Yet the crores visibly spent during campaigns rarely appear in the expenditure affidavits filed with the Election Commission. The mismatch between what we see and what is declared is glaring, and I find it disturbing that the ECI rarely questions these discrepancies.

The data makes one thing undeniable: this trend is not accidental. I believe it reflects a deliberate and deepening criminalisation of politics. ADR’s Bihar analysis shows 61 per cent of BJP winners, 36 per cent of JD(U) winners and 72 per cent of RJD winners face criminal cases.

The Lok Janshakti Party (Ram Vilas) reports 58 per cent, and the Congress 67 per cent. Smaller parties are even more stark: AIMIM 100 per cent, CPI(ML)(L) 100 per cent, CPI(M) 100 per cent, the Indian Inclusive Party 100 per cent and the BSP 100 per cent. Even modest formations like HAM-S (1 of 5) and Rashtriya Lok Morcha (1 of 4) add to the tally.

This raises a terribly uncomfortable question: did political parties truly have no choice but to field tainted candidates? Or have they surrendered to a cynical logic that sees criminality as an electoral asset — a shortcut to influence, intimidation and resource mobilisation that honest candidates simply cannot match? Is it coincidence that every major party repeatedly backs candidates with serious charges, or is criminality now an unspoken norm of Indian politics?

The national picture is equally grim. According to ADR’s consolidated analysis, nearly forty percent of sitting MPs and MLAs across India face criminal cases. Most alarming, 151 lawmakers face charges related to crimes against women, including sixteen accused of rape. When those entrusted with protecting citizens stand accused of such grave offences, the social contract is ruptured at its core. It signals to the nation that the law is negotiable for the powerful.

I believe the single biggest enabler of this crisis is the agonising pace of India’s criminal justice system. Cases involving sitting legislators often drag on for years, sometimes decades. This delay becomes a political shield. A lawmaker accused of murder or rape can contest again and again, win again and again, and wield public power while the case remains frozen in procedural limbo.

Data placed before the Supreme Court by the Union Government — and reported by IndiaSpend — exposes the magnitude of a systemic drag rooted in our chronic taareeq-pe-tareeq justice culture. The conviction rate in criminal cases against legislators is an abysmal six percent, with only 38 convictions out of 3,884 cases examined. More than 2,000 cases involving MPs and MLAs are still pending.

This is not the republic our founders imagined. Dr B.R. Ambedkar repeatedly warned that constitutional morality depended entirely on the conduct of those holding office. Public trust, he believed, was inseparable from personal integrity. Mahatma Gandhi held that anyone seeking to guide public conscience must embody the highest standards of personal morality. Yet the same political parties that swear by Ambedkar and invoke Gandhi in every rally routinely field candidates whom neither leader would have permitted within the gates of public life.

If these parties wish to honour the icons they celebrate, they must first become worthy of them. Instead, we have allowed the Representation of the People Act (RPA), 1951, to become the formal architecture of moral decay, as Section 8 effectively grants immunity until the elusive final conviction.

This is why I believe reforming the RPA is now a democratic survival imperative. We urgently need a three-pillar reform mandate.

First, amend the RPA to introduce pre-conviction disqualification, as recommended by the Law Commission in its 244th Report. Disqualification should be triggered for heinous offences — punishable by five years or more — once charges are formally framed. Framing of charges is a judicial act and acts as the safeguard against political misuse.

Second, overhaul judicial timelines. The Supreme Court has repeatedly urged Special Courts and High Court monitoring, but pendency remains staggering. Trials involving legislators must be completed within one year of the framing of charges.

Third, enforce party accountability and clean up political finance. Parties are the gatekeepers of democracy; they must be held liable for repeatedly nominating tainted candidates. Parliament should empower the Election Commission to freeze a party’s symbol or even derecognise it if it consistently fields candidates with serious charges without convincing justification.

Simultaneously, opaque funding pipelines must end. Full transparency in political donations and expenditure must become binding law, and visible discrepancies in affidavits must invite stringent penalties.

To me, Bihar’s verdict is a final warning. It shows what happens when systemic neglect meets political expediency. It shows what governance looks like when the law is made by those who treat the law as negotiable. India must now choose between a democracy of laws and a democracy built on loopholes.

If we fail to act now, we will not only continue electing lawmakers with serious charges; we will have surrendered the moral authority of our democracy.

This is not a partisan crisis. It is a national, existential threat. And I believe the question before the Republic is brutally simple: will we allow lawbreakers to define our laws, or will we demand a politics worthy of the republic we were meant to be?

(The columnist is a Mumbai-based author and independent media veteran, running websites and a youtube channel known for his thought-provoking messaging.)