Say no to crime and corruption in Karnataka's assembly politics

Created:  Thu, July 22, 2010 Last Update: Sat, Oct 16, 2010
http://www.petitiononline.com/kapolitc/
Karnataka Assembly - Criminal & Financial Background of Ministers, MLAs & Candidates [PDF]
In the 2008 Karnataka assembly there're
a) 42-43 MLAs (Members of Legislative Assembly) with criminal records - BJP (25), INC (08), JD[S] (07) and Independents (02)
b) 08 MLAs with murder or attempt to murder cases against them - BJP (03), INC (03) and JD[S] (02).
c) 18.75 % of MLAs with criminal cases against them.
d) 32 MLAs with cases of a serious nature against them which includes murder, attempt to murder, rape, theft, dacoity, bribery, cheating, forgery, causing hurt using dangerous weapons, outraging the modesty of a woman and criminal intimidation.
e) Several MLAs having multiple cases against them.

8/21 candidates with murder or attempt to murder cases became MLAs. 32/94 candidates having serious cases against them became MLAs. Out of 42 MLAs with a criminal record, 16 were 1st time winners (2008) and 26 were repeat winners (2004 and 2008).

Govt let Reddy bros have the last laugh in 15 cases Times of India Friday, July 16, 2010
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bangalore/Govt-let-Reddy-bros-have-the-last-laugh-in-15-cases/articleshow/6174661.cms
http://adrindia.org/files/karnataka%20assembly%20complete%20report.pdf
http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Video/93433/42/karnataka-illegal-mining-continues-unabated.html
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/31/stop-illegal-mining-in-forests-by-mining-mafia
http://www.petitiononline.com/mfmining/
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-karnataka-forests-mining-mafia
http://www.petitiononline.com/miningmf/ 
The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) of India said that the "total value of hard cash, liquor and goodies seized in Karnataka (in 2008) was Rs.45.57 crores, the highest value (by a wide margin) in any general election to a State in my four years in the ECI.

Big spending in elections by parties and candidates is a manifestation of the festering disease of corruption and concealment of income leading to the generation of black money.

If a candidate is willing to spend ten times more than the prescribed ceiling, it is not out of philanthropy, but in the secure knowledge that he can earn ten times what he spends once he gets to the seat of power." (The Hindu, Op-Ed, May 31, 2008).

We also endorse the CEC's views. To preserve democracy, the nexus between crime, money and politics needs to be broken. The chances of an ordinary citizen getting a ticket and winning are almost nil. Our system does not permit even a Class 4 job in Government to be taken up if there is any criminal case pending. However, it permits such a person to become an MLA or Minister. This is clearly discriminating against ordinary people who are not in politics. The system needs to change.

Representation of women is also very low - less than 5% of candidates and less than 1.5% of MLAs. That means 50 per cent of the population is not adequately represented.

Only 50 MLAs got more than 50% of the votes cast. The ruling party got less votes than the main opposition party - about 33.86% of the votes. A majority of voters go unrepresented in a multi party contest.

We need a wider debate on reforms and consider alternate systems including proportional representation, direct election of the Chief Minister and/or a requirement that the winner must get at least 50% of the votes cast.

Greater transparency in election expenses is needed, and that information should be available to voters well in advance of elections. Unfortunately, the political system has not shown much interest in such reforms.

Money power of winning candidates in Karnataka Assembly Elections 2008
Average assets of
Winners->Rs.5.6 crores
Losers-->Rs.1.9 crores

The three major parties gave tickets to candidates with high assets.
Average declared assets of MLAs
BJP--->Rs.4.4 crores
INC--->Rs.8.1 crores
JD(S)->Rs.3.9 crores

This is a disturbing trend since ordinary citizens have almost no chance of entering politics. Only the major parties win, and they give tickets to people with large assets.

The Election Commission of India (ECI) seized cash, liquor and other gifts worth Rs.45.57 crores. What was not seized will never be known.
Value of cash, liquor and other gifts seized by the ECI=Rs.45.57 crores

Candidates->225
Assets of 225 candidates in
2004----------->Rs.0227.80 crores
2008----------->Rs.1271.40 crores
Net increase--->Rs.1043.00 crores (an increase of 458 per cent)

MLAs (Members of the Legislative Assembly) reporting high asset increase=91
Assets of 91 MLAs in
2004--------->Rs.0121.00 crores
2008--------->Rs.0573.00 crores
Net increase->Rs.0451.00 crores (an increase of 371%)

Criminal Records
Candidates with a criminal record from registered political parties->0140
Independent candidates with criminal records------------------------>Some

Total number of candidates with a criminal record from registered political parties=140

MLAs with criminal records in the 2008 Assembly
BJP--------->25
INC--------->08
JD(S)------->07
Independents->02
Total MLAs-->43-42 (with criminal records)

MLAs in the 2008 Assembly with murder or attempt to murder cases against them
BJP--->03
INC--->03
JD(S)->02
Total->08

18.75% of MLAs in the 2008 Assembly have formal criminal cases against them.

It is ironic that one cannot get a Government job with a criminal case, but it is possible to get elected as an MLA.

Total cases of a serious nature=32 (includes murder, attempt to murder, rape, theft, dacoity, bribery, cheating, forgery, causing hurt using dangerous weapons, outraging the modesty of a woman and criminal intimidation) Several MLAs have multiple cases against them.

Candidates---------------------------------------->21
having murder or attempt to murder cases->22 (One had 02 cases against him)
elected as MLAs---------------------------------->08

8/21 candidates with murder or attempt to murder cases became MLAs.

Cases of a serious nature against registered political parties
Candidates->94
MLAs------->32

Criminal records are declared by candidates only after charges have been framed. Prior to this, there is usually an FIR at a police station, an investigation, filing of chargesheet by the Police in Court, and finally formal framing of charges by the Court. After that the trial starts.

If there were two or more tainted candidates from these three major parties - the BJP, INC and JD(S) in a constituency, then voters had little choice but to elect one of them. Thus, there were 20 such constituencies with two or more tainted candidates, and amongst these, 13 won.

Constituencies of major parties
With two or more candidates having a criminal record->20
Won by candidates having a criminal record------------->13

Constituencies
with only one tainted candidate from a major party->94
Won by clean candidates---------------------------------->67 71.3% won

Thus, among "Other" parties, there are 23 serious offenses, and there are 46 candidates with criminal charges.

Other parties
Serious offenses--------------------->23
Candidates with criminal charges->46

Out of 42 MLAs with a criminal record, 16 werefirst time winners (2008) and 26 were repeat winners (2004 and 2008).
MLAs with criminal record---->42
First time winners in 2008--->16
Repeat winners in 2008----->26

Changes in Criminal Records between 2004 and 2008
Among the elected MLAs, there were 38 who changed the declarations about their criminal records between 2004 and 2008. Of this, there were 19 from the BJP, 9 from the INC and 10 from the JD(S). This needs to be investigated by the authorities so that the reason for thechange is ascertained.

Changes in Criminal Records of MLAs between 2004 and 2008
BJP--->19
INC--->09
JD(S)->10
Total->38

Average assets of BJP Ministers is more than the average assets of the BJP MLAs, which is in turn more than that of the BJP candidates.

First List of Ministers Karnataka Assembly 2008, May 2008: 31 Members. (3 MLAs are from the MLC and one is not from either house. Their records are not yet available)
BJP Ministers:
Total Assets----->Rs.134.8 Cr
Avg Assets------->Rs.006.4 Cr
Criminal Records->6

Independents:
Total Assets----->Rs.16.1 Cr
Avg Assets------->Rs.03.2 Cr
Criminal Records->2

15 MLAs with Very High Declared Assets (greater than Rs. 20 Crores);
Total Assets------------>Rs.662.7 Cr
Average Assets/MLA->Rs.044.2 Cr

55 MLAs with High Declared Assets (Between Rs. 3 crores and Rs. 20 Crores):
BJP------------->25
INC------------->23
JD(S)----------->06
Independent->01
Total----------->55

Candidates with High Assets (between Rs. 3 Crores and Rs. 20 Crores)
BJP------>044
INC----->055
JD(S)--->035
Others->021
Total--->155
155 Candidates with a total of Rs.1081.84 crores

Candidates with Very High Rise in Assets(> Rs. 5 Cr):
36 Candidates
Assets in 2004->Rs.104.0 Cr
Assets in 2008->Rs.933.0 Cr
Increase--------->Rs.829.0 Cr

%age Increase-------->797%
Avg Increase/Cand--->Rs.23 Cr

BJP MLAs
with crime records--------------------->25
with Murder or Attempt to murder cases->03
Total Assets->Rs.168.10 crores
Avg. Assets-->Rs.006.72 crores

JD(S) MLAs
with crime records---------------------------->07
with Murder or Attempt to murder cases->02
Total Assets->Rs.30.93 crores
Avg. Assets-->Rs.03.87 crores

INC MLAs
with crime records---------------------------->08
with Murder or Attempt to murder cases->03
Total Assets->Rs.34.80 crores
Avg. Assets-->Rs.04.35 crores

Candidates with Criminal Records
BJP---->049 (2004)->040 (2008)
INC---->024 (2004)->025 (2008)
JD(S)-->039 (2004)->029 (2008)
Others->090 (2004)->046 (2008)
Total-->202 (2004)->140 (2008)

Winners/MLAs with Criminal Records
BJP---->26 (2004)->25 (2008)
INC---->09 (2004)->08 (2008)
JD(S)-->18 (2004)->07 (2008)
Others->07 (2004)->02 (2008)
Total-->60 (2004)->42 (2008)

Criminal Records: 2004 to 2008 Changes for Repeat MLAs
BJP--->19 MLAs
JD(S)->10 MLAs
INC--->09 MLAs

Conclusions
The Chief Election Commissioner (CEC) of India said that the "total value of hard cash, liquor and goodies seized in Karnataka (in 2008) was Rs.45.57 crores, the highest value (by a wide margin) in any general election to a State in my four years in the ECI.

Big spending in elections by parties and candidates is a manifestation of the festering disease of corruption and concealment of income leading to the generation of black money.

If a candidate is willing to spend ten times more than the prescribed ceiling, it is not out of philanthropy, but in the secure knowledge that he can earn ten times what he spends once he gets to the seat of power." (The Hindu, Op-Ed, May 31, 2008).

We also endorse the CEC's views. To preserve democracy, the nexus between crime, money and politics needs to be broken. The chances of an ordinary citizen getting a ticket and winning are almost nil. Our system does not permit even a Class 4 job in Government to be taken up if there is any criminal case pending. However, it permits such a person to become an MLA or Minister. This is clearly discriminating against ordinary people who are not in politics. The system needs to change.

Representation of women is also very low - less than 5% of candidates and less than 1.5% of MLAs. That means 50% of the population is not adequately represented.

Only 50 MLAs got more than 50% of the votes cast. The ruling party got less votes than the main opposition party - about 33.86% of the votes. A majority of voters go unrepresented in a multi party contest.

We need a wider debate on reforms and consider alternate systems including proportional representation, direct election of the Chief Minister and/or a requirement that the winner must get at least 50% of the votes cast.

Greater transparency in election expenses is needed, and that information should be available to voters well in advance of elections. Unfortunately, the political system has not shown much interest in such reforms.

CONCLUSION IN BRIEF:
To preserve and/or save democracy in all Indian states in general and Karnataka in particular we need to
01) Break the unholy nexus between crime, money / cash / corruption and politics.
02) Have a wider debate on electoral reforms.
03) Consider alternate systems including proportional representation.
04) Consider direct election of the Chief Minister (CM) and/or a requirement that the winner must get at least 50% of the votes cast.
05) Bring all the elected representatives in the state like Members of Legislative Assembly (MLAs), Members of Legislative Council (MLCS), Municipal Councillors / Corporators, Zilla Parishad (ZP), Taluk Panchayat (TP) and Mandal Panchayat (MP) under the purview of the state's  anti-corrupt Ombudsman (Lokayukta).
06) Bring chairpersons of boards / civic bodies / Urban Development Authorities who're appointed by the politicians of the ruling party in the state under the purview of the state's anti-corrupt Ombudsman (Lokayukta).
07) Bring Chief Ministers, Cabinet Ministers and Ministers of state under the purview of the state's anti-corrupt Ombudsman (Lokayukta).
08) Bring Members of the Parliament [Lok Sabha (LS)  / Lower House and Rajya Sabha (RS) / Upper House] including the Prime Minister (PM) under the purview of the central anti-corrupt ombudsman (Lok Pal).
09) Implement Supreme Court directives both in letter and in spirit.
10) Stop politicians from interfering in the working / functioning of the Police Establishment Board (PEB) which should transfer police officials strictly based on merit only.
11) Make the state police accountable to the law and the constitution of India.
12) Stop politicians from the ruling parties withdrawing the criminal cases against their partymen / affiliates / sympathisers.
13) Stop politicians from interfering with the autonomous functioning of the police department.

http://www.petitiononline.com/inpolitc/ 
Recommendations for Electoral & Political Reforms by ADR & NEW [PDF]
http://www.adrindia.org/images/pdf/recommendations_adrnew.pdf 
Recommendations for implementing and enforcing Electoral Reforms
1. For upholding the highest traditions of probity and morality in public life, any person against whom charges have been framed by a Court of Law of serious offences like murder, attempt to murder, rape, kidnapping, extortion, etc. should not be allowed to contest elections.

2. In order to protect the identity of a voter wishing to exercise his/her right under Section 49(O), an additional button on the EVM should be there saying "None of the Above".

3. Candidates should declare their income and sources of income along with the current declaration of assets and liabilities at the time of nominations.

4. The excessive use of money in elections vitiates democracy. Anyone who breaks the law by giving money and gifts to voters, or exceeding the legal spending limits should have his/her election set aside.

5. The information given in the affidavits on criminal charges, assets etc. should be verified by an independent central authority in a time bound manner. Strong action should be taken against candidates on finding serious anomalies.

6. Clean and accurate voter rolls are the very basis for a functioning democracy. The process to keep them accurate and updated should be made completely citizen friendly. There should be only one voter list for all elections. Access to voter rolls should be made available at all times.

7. As people have the right to elect their representatives, they should also have the right to recall them.

8. The Election Commissioners should be appointed by a committee consisting of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Speaker of the Lok Sabha and the Deputy Chairperson of the Rajya Sabha.

9. The Election Commissioners should not be eligible for any office after retirement for a period of 5 years. They should also not be allowed to join any political party for a period of 5 years after retirement.

Resolutions 1 and 2 above are supported by the Election Commission of India. The EC has written to the Prime Minister with this and several other suggestions a few years ago. Resolution 2 above emerged as the single most repeated demand across the country.

Recommendations for implementing and enforcing the reform of Political Parties
1. There is an urgent need for a comprehensive Bill to regulate political parties. An excellent draft for this has already been prepared by the Law Commission. Such a Bill needs to be passed by Parliament.

2. There is a need to make it mandatory for all recognized registered political parties to have democratically elected bodies and their functioning, including their financial status, should be made transparent and known to all.

3. Since it has been made mandatory for all candidates to make their financial status public, the political parties should also be called upon to regularly file statements of their assets and liabilities, which should also be made public.

4. Political parties and candidates should declare their sources of funds well before elections so that voters can make an informed choice.

Other Issues
The seemingly illegal and unconstitutional allocation of public funds in the name of MP and MLA Local Area Development should be stopped immediately as it encourages corruption.

In India there are Bills to regulate Companies, Charitable trusts, Societies, Cooperatives, Hospitals, Educational Institutions, Trade Unions, places of worship and other forms of organized activity. However there is no Bill to regulate political parties although several other countries have such Bills.

The two mains issues at this point in time are regulation of political party and election funding and expenses, and ensuring inner party democracy.

The question why's the powers that be want "consensus" or why "lack of unanimity" should stand in the way of introducing law for preventing criminals from contesting elections?

The Constitution of India does not need 'Consensus' for passing any Bill.

Further, whose consensus is required - of 153 MPs in Lok Sabha 2009 with criminal cases pending against them, 74 facing charges of heinous crimes like murder / dacoity?

What is wrong in adopting the straightforward test of framing of Charges by a Court of Law on prosecution case instituted after due Investigation?

Under Code of Criminal Procedure CrPC, Charges are framed by the Court only when adequate prima facie case is made out by the statements / material placed by the Prosecution before the Court.

Why can't the Executive exhibit faith in Judiciary, specially when the act of framing charges is open to Judicial Review by Superior Courts?

Every one knows that even an attender cannot be employed in Government Service if there is any doubt about his integrity or character; why should a person wanting to contest an Election also be not subjected to similar requirement?

'Consensus' will never come in any such matter which adversely affects any political leader/party.

Standing for elections is not a Fundamental Right under the/our Indian Constitution although the 'right to vote' is a fundamental right.

Why elevate the legal right to contest under Representation of People Act into a Constitutional right for all practical purposes by ensuring protections like Section 8(4) of R.P. Act of 1951?

Why can persons with criminal antecedents not be disqualified to contest?

Why is 'conviction' essential?

Why clear doubts on the integrity and/or character of a person be not a good ground to disqualify?

Why should the People be made to bear with criminals in power?

Parliament and/or Legislatures are not 'Employment Exchange(s)'.

Unless the Govt. can ensure that the trial of a politician for a criminal offence will be over within 6 months, that an Appeal against the conviction must be filed within one month and Appeal must be decided within 3 months and there shall be no further Appeal/Revision to any Court (including Supreme Court - except on a point of Constitutional Law), criminals will continue to rule in corridors of power.

The concept of 'innocent until proved guilty' may hold field in civil life/society but not in law making bodies - criminals must and should not be/become lawmakers!

Our appeal is that the Govt. should accept, implement and enforce the three important recommendations (summarized below) of the Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) and that this should be done at the earliest and the Nation informed of the time frame.
(i) Early appointment of India's anti-corrupt ombudsmen Lok Pal at the national elvel and Lok Ayuktas at the state level.

(ii) Disqualification of heavily tainted candidates for election to Parliament and State Legislatures, against whom serious criminal offences, filed six months prior to election are going on in Law Courts, as recommended by two former Chief Election Commissioners Mr. T.S. Krishnamurthy and Mr. B.B. Tandon.

(iii) Confiscation of assets of Ministers, MPs, MLAs, MLCs and senior Bureaucrats acquired illegally/or by corrupt means, as recommended by the Law Commission of India, chaired by Justice B. P. Jeevan Reddy in their Report No. 166 submitted with draft bill to the Law Ministry as far back as 1999.

ARC's recommendations may be summarized as under:
para 3.4.10 Confiscation of properties illegally acquired by corrupt means, as suggested by the Law Commission without further delay.

para 3.5.4 - Prohibition of 'Benami' Transactions - Immediate implementation of Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act 1988

para 2.1.3.3.2, Disqualification

Section 8 of the Representation of the People Act 1951 needs to be amended to disqualify all persons facing charges related to grave and heinous offences and corruption.

ARC's detailed recommendation para 4.3.15 relating to Lok Pal (India's anti-corrupt ombudsman)
ARC report para 4.3.15 The Lok Pal: (a) The Constitution should be amended to provide for a national ombudsman to be called the Rashtriya Lokayukta. The role and jurisdiction of the Rashtriya Lokayukta should be defined in the Constitution while the composition, mode of appointment and other details can be decided by Parliament through legislation.

Commitments made in the manifestos have lost their significance in the absence of some commitment regarding the time frame within which the implementation and enforcement shall be done.

Respectfully we suggest for completing the required administrative orders and required legislations for the above two recommendations of ARC at the earliest: -
(i) Confiscation of property wrongfully acquired, since this recommendation along with the recommendation of Prohibition of Benami Transactions Act 1988 have both been accepted by the Union Govt.

(ii) Disqualification of heavily tainted candidates for elections to Parliament and State Legislatures.