Criminalization of politics is one of the most urgent issues for the Parliament in the present situation. Chapter IX A of Indian Penal Code deals with offences relating to elections. It comprises of nine sections. It defines and provides punishment for offences, such as bribery, undue influence and personation at elections, illegal payment and failure to maintain accounts, etc. According to Section 171E, in case of failure to maintain accounts, the offender shall be punished with fine not exceeding Rs.500. Thus, in IPC, provisions have been made to check election evils but nominal punishments have been provided and interest is not taken in prosecution of election offenders. These provisions have failed to check criminalization of politics. Sec. 8 of the Representation of People Act, 1951 appears more deterrent as it provides disqualification for six years on conviction of certain offences and if sentenced to imprisonment for not less than six months. However, the disqualification shall not take effect in case of a person who on the date of the conviction is a member of parliament or state legislature until three months have elapsed from that date or if within that period an appeal or application for revision is brought in respect of the conviction or the sentence until that appeal or application is disposed by the court. The courts are well aware of the problem of criminalization of politics but the politics is an area where courts do not want to be involved actively.

In the case of Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018), the top court had recommended enactment of a strong law to decriminalize politics. It had issued directions to contesting candidates to disclose details of pending criminal cases against them in the form provided by the Election Commission of India. However, the irony of the situation is that right after the Supreme Court order, Prime Minister Narendra Modi appointed Anand Singh, an accused in mining cases, as a minister in Karnataka, while the BJP Government claimed that they welcomed the verdict, saying it would strengthen electoral democracy.

It has become a normal fact that the idea of free and fair elections is tarnished by favouritism, nepotism, corruption, communal violence, blackmailing, money laundering and EVM hacking. Abuse of office is becoming more common with the political and bureaucratic nexus getting stronger during elections. No doubt, so many candidates with criminal antecedents enter the Parliament and state legislatures. The failure of judiciary in emsuring free and fair elections was clearly visible in the case of Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, where Chief Justice A.N. Ray had laid down that the constituent power of Parliament was above the Constitution itself and therefore not bound by the principle of separation of powers. Hence, the Parliament could exclude laws relating to election disputes from the purview of judicial review.