The Supreme Court's directive to the Centre for setting up special courts to exclusively try criminal cases involving politicians assumes significance in the context of the judiciary trying hard to end the politico-criminal nexus.
The apex court move, seen as part of its attempts to tackle criminalisation of politics, is bound to create a flutter among the netas. The SC is keen on establishing a time-bound and exclusive judicial mechanism to expedite trials involving politicians.
The court requires the Centre to provide details of the funding necessary to set up special courts, and wants state governments be involved in the exercise. A few prominent leaders have been successfully tried and sentenced, but these are exceptions rather than rule.
However, establishing special courts may not be the ideal way to expedite cases. The accused might feel aggrieved with the idea as it could smack of victimisation and engender a feeling of being chosen for discriminatory treatment.
While corruption charges against public servants are being handled by special courts, questions have arisen whether there can be special treatment for offences under the Indian Penal Code solely on account of the accused being a politician.
At the same time, it is in public interest to expedite cases in which those in public life face serious charges. The ideal remedy will, however, be a speedy trial in regular courts.
The political-criminal nexus calls for strong corrective action rather than persisting with the status quo. However, the court observed cases against politicians stretched for two decades by when they have completed multiple terms in office. Almost 34 per cent of them have criminal cases of which 20 per cent are of a heinous nature. The impediments in this regard is institutional.
Even as states are enthusiastic about funding special courts for trying politicians, there is an acute shortage of judges partly because of the delay in finalisation of the Memorandum of Procedure for the appointment of more judges.
Records reveal about 1,500 people with criminal records contested the elections. Considering the manner in which justice is delivered, is it prudent to set aside resources, human and material, to expressly try such a small lot?
As a first step, the communication gap between the judiciary and the EC needs to be bridged. The EC is often unaware about convictions and politicians unabashedly continue in their posts. The EC has come out in favour of a lifetime ban for convicted politicians. The question is will swift justice deter corruption among this influential class.
The rationale behind this move is that the longer political functionaries with charges against them continue in office, the more their chances to manipulate the system. Since political parties are not averse to those against whom charges have not been proven, one way of tackling it is to lessen the judicial delays in concluding the cases.
For now, a member of Parliament or state assembly found guilty of a criminal offence punishable with two years or more in jail immediately loses the membership of the house. The court's 2013 judgement also bars a convicted politician from contesting elections for six years from the date the sentence ends.
It is now up to the Narendra Modi government to respond positively to the judicial interventions or pursue a legislative approach for achieving the same end. With both the courts and the Election Commission of India on the same page, criminals would find it difficult to continuing in politics.
