New Delhi: Political parties have given reasons, such as “strong administrative capacity”, “commitment to public service” and claims of cases being “politically motivated”, for selecting candidates with criminal records in the 2024 Maharashtra and Jharkhand Assembly elections.
Poll rights body ADR has said that in many cases, the parties dismissed alternative candidates as lacking experience or the ability to connect with voters, using these explanations to side-step questions about their choices.
The ADR has analysed the Form C7 of 1,286 candidates, who contested the Maharashtra and Jharkhand Assembly polls. Form C7 requires candidates to declare their criminal antecedents, if any.
An ADR report revealed that such reasoning often failed to meet the Supreme Court’s directive requiring detailed, merit-based justifications for selecting candidates with criminal backgrounds. Instead, statements like “the candidate is young and energetic” or “cases were filed due to public agitation” were repeatedly used.
Despite these assertions, 29 per cent candidates in Maharashtra and 20 per cent in Jharkhand had no justification published for their selection, a direct violation of the Supreme Court’s orders.
For instance, in Maharashtra, Digamber Rohidas Aagwane of the Rashtriya Samaj Paksha, facing 35 criminal cases, was described as an “influential leader” dedicated to the poor, with no viable explanation for bypassing candidates without criminal records.
Similarly, the selection of Congress’s Sanjay Chandukaka Jagtap and Bunty Baba Shelke, facing 27 and 26 cases respectively, as candidates was justified on grounds of administrative experience and alleged political victimisation. The report also highlighted non-compliance with mandatory disclosures.