Rambabu Singh Thakur Case (2020)
– Criminalisation of Politics and Party Accountability
Background of the Case
Despite a series of earlier judgments—such as:
- Association for Democratic Reforms (2002)
- PUCL (2013)
- Lily Thomas (2013)
……the number of candidates with criminal antecedents contesting elections continued to rise.
The Court noted a critical problem:
- Voters were informed,
- But political parties were never held publicly accountable for nominating such candidates.
This case was heard against that backdrop.
Core Constitutional Concern
How can democracy be protected when political parties repeatedly field candidates with serious criminal charges, often in the name of “winnability”?
Supreme Court’s Judgement
The Supreme Court issued binding directions to political parties and the Election Commission, aimed at ensuring transparency, accountability, and constitutional morality.
Key Directions Issued by the Court
(i) Mandatory Disclosure by Political Parties
The Court directed that:
- Every political party (national and state level) must publish detailed information on candidates with pending criminal cases
This information must include:
- Nature of offences
- Whether charges have been framed
- Case number and concerned court
This marks a shift from:
Candidate-centric disclosure → Party-centric responsibility
(ii) Reasons for Selection Must Be Justified
Political parties must clearly state:
- Why the candidate with criminal antecedents was selected
- Why a candidate without such antecedents was not chosen
Crucially, the Court held that:
- Reasons cannot be based solely on “winnability”
- They must relate to → Qualifications, Achievements, Merit of the candidate
This is a direct attempt to dismantle the “winnability excuse”.
(iii) Wide Publicity of Information
The Court mandated that the above information must be published:
- On the official website of the political party
- In:
- One local vernacular newspaper
- One national newspaper
- On official social media platforms of the party, including:
This ensures:
- Maximum public visibility
- Informed electoral choice
Constitutional Significance
This judgment:
- Strengthened electoral transparency
- Expanded the idea of free and fair elections
- Linked criminalisation of politics to:
- Democratic decay
- Constitutional morality
It reinforces the principle that → Democracy cannot survive on secrecy and selective silence.
Impact of the Judgement
- The Election Commission of India:
- Issued directions to all recognised political parties
- Mandated compliance with the Court’s orders
- Introduced a new Form C-7, requiring:
- Detailed disclosure of candidates with criminal backgrounds
- Formal certification by political parties
Place in Electoral Reform Jurisprudence
| Case | Contribution |
|---|---|
| ADR (2002) | Voter’s right to know |
| PUCL (2013) | NOTA |
| Lily Thomas (2013) | Immediate disqualification |
| Rambabu Singh Thakur (2020) | Party accountability |
Limitations Highlighted
While significant, the judgment:
- Does not bar criminals from contesting elections
- Relies heavily on:
- Moral pressure
- Public scrutiny
Thus, the issue still awaits legislative intervention.
Summary
The Rambabu Singh Thakur Case (2020) mandated political parties to publicly disclose and justify the selection of candidates with criminal antecedents, rejected “winnability” as a valid excuse, and strengthened transparency and accountability in electoral politics.