New Delhi, Feb 4 (PTI) – A new report by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) has exposed significant transparency gaps among political parties in the lead-up to the Delhi Assembly elections. The analysis reveals that 24 out of 118 candidates with criminal records—around 20%—have not provided adequate justifications or disclosures regarding their criminal histories, raising concerns about political accountability ahead of the February 5 election.
The ADR’s findings, based on Format C7 data, point to the failure of several political parties to comply with a Supreme Court order requiring them to explain why they are fielding candidates with pending criminal cases. In total, 699 candidates are vying for a seat in the 70-member Delhi Assembly.
While 94 of the 118 candidates with criminal backgrounds disclosed their charges as required, the remaining 24 candidates were not fully transparent about their criminal histories. Of these, 71 individuals face serious charges, including corruption, rioting, and violent offenses, further intensifying concerns over the integrity of the electoral process.
The Supreme Court’s mandate obligates political parties to provide clear, substantive reasons for choosing candidates with criminal cases, beyond simply citing “winnability” as a rationale. However, many parties continue to offer vague or repetitive justifications, with some alleging political motivations behind the charges, though without offering compelling evidence.
The ADR's report covers 22 political parties, including major ones like the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Congress, and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), all of which largely adhered to the disclosure rules. However, smaller parties such as the Peoples Party of India (Democratic) and Bhartiya Rashtrawadi Party fell short in meeting the requirements. The All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM) and National Loktantrik Party were also found to have submitted identical justifications for multiple candidates, raising questions about the authenticity of their disclosures.
Notable candidates with significant criminal backgrounds include Amanatullah Khan (AAP), who faces 19 cases, Arvind Kejriwal (AAP) with 15 cases, and Mohd. Tahir Hussain (AIMIM) with 11 cases, all of which include serious charges. Despite the severity of these allegations, the parties have defended their selections, citing the candidates' political experience, popularity, and claims of political vendettas.
In addition to concerns about criminal backgrounds, the ADR’s report highlights the intersection of money, muscle, and politics. Among the 118 candidates with criminal records, 84 (71%) are millionaires. The top three wealthiest candidates, according to declared assets, include Manjinder Singh Sirsa (BJP) with ₹248 crore, Gurcharan Singh (Congress) with ₹130 crore, and Parvesh Sahib Singh (BJP) with ₹115 crore.
In response to these revelations, the ADR has called for urgent electoral reforms. Its recommendations include imposing stricter penalties on parties that fail to disclose criminal records, fast-tracking criminal cases against politicians, banning candidates with serious charges from running, and introducing financial penalties for non-compliance with disclosure requirements.
As the February 5 elections for the Delhi Assembly approach, and with votes to be counted on February 8, these issues of transparency and accountability in politics are expected to remain at the forefront of public discourse.
The ADR’s findings, based on Format C7 data, point to the failure of several political parties to comply with a Supreme Court order requiring them to explain why they are fielding candidates with pending criminal cases. In total, 699 candidates are vying for a seat in the 70-member Delhi Assembly.
While 94 of the 118 candidates with criminal backgrounds disclosed their charges as required, the remaining 24 candidates were not fully transparent about their criminal histories. Of these, 71 individuals face serious charges, including corruption, rioting, and violent offenses, further intensifying concerns over the integrity of the electoral process.
The Supreme Court’s mandate obligates political parties to provide clear, substantive reasons for choosing candidates with criminal cases, beyond simply citing “winnability” as a rationale. However, many parties continue to offer vague or repetitive justifications, with some alleging political motivations behind the charges, though without offering compelling evidence.
The ADR's report covers 22 political parties, including major ones like the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), Congress, and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), all of which largely adhered to the disclosure rules. However, smaller parties such as the Peoples Party of India (Democratic) and Bhartiya Rashtrawadi Party fell short in meeting the requirements. The All India Majlis-e-Ittehad-ul-Muslimeen (AIMIM) and National Loktantrik Party were also found to have submitted identical justifications for multiple candidates, raising questions about the authenticity of their disclosures.
Notable candidates with significant criminal backgrounds include Amanatullah Khan (AAP), who faces 19 cases, Arvind Kejriwal (AAP) with 15 cases, and Mohd. Tahir Hussain (AIMIM) with 11 cases, all of which include serious charges. Despite the severity of these allegations, the parties have defended their selections, citing the candidates' political experience, popularity, and claims of political vendettas.
In addition to concerns about criminal backgrounds, the ADR’s report highlights the intersection of money, muscle, and politics. Among the 118 candidates with criminal records, 84 (71%) are millionaires. The top three wealthiest candidates, according to declared assets, include Manjinder Singh Sirsa (BJP) with ₹248 crore, Gurcharan Singh (Congress) with ₹130 crore, and Parvesh Sahib Singh (BJP) with ₹115 crore.
In response to these revelations, the ADR has called for urgent electoral reforms. Its recommendations include imposing stricter penalties on parties that fail to disclose criminal records, fast-tracking criminal cases against politicians, banning candidates with serious charges from running, and introducing financial penalties for non-compliance with disclosure requirements.
As the February 5 elections for the Delhi Assembly approach, and with votes to be counted on February 8, these issues of transparency and accountability in politics are expected to remain at the forefront of public discourse.
Last updated by a enewsx:
