Research paper

Criminalisation of Politics in Uttar Pradesh: A Study of

Causes, Consequences, and Reforms
1. Introduction

India's democratic architecture is grounded in the principles of electoral fairness, the rule of law,
and citizen empowerment. However, the criminalisation of politics ( refers to the increasing
entry of individuals with serious criminal charges into electoral politics and legislative bodies. It
involves the use of muscle and money power to influence elections and governance.)—poses a
critical threat to democratic legitimacy. This trend is particularly pronounced in Uttar Pradesh
(UP), India’s most populous and politically influential state sending the highest number of MPs
to Parliament, where the blending of muscle, money, and politics has deep historical roots. This
study examines the scope, causes, implications, and possible reform measures regarding
criminalised politics in UP.

2. Objectives

 To assess the scale and pattern of criminalisation in UP politics over the

past three decades.
 To understand socio-economic and political factors encouraging
criminal elements in politics.
 To evaluate the impact on democratic functioning, governance, and
public trust.
 To explore the institutional response from political parties, judiciary,
and election commission.
 To propose pragmatic policy and legal reforms to mitigate this menace.

3. Research Questions

 What is the scale and nature of criminalisation among political

representatives in UP?
 What are the socio-political drivers behind the electoral success of
such candidates?
 How does criminalisation affect development outcomes and public
trust?
 What are the gaps in existing legal and institutional frameworks?
 What reforms can effectively decriminalise the political landscape in
UP?
4. Hypotheses

 H1: Weak enforcement and voter perception of criminal politicians as

"effective" drive their success.
 H2: Political parties prefer winnability over clean records, thus fielding
tainted candidates.
 H3: Criminalisation correlates negatively with development indicators
and democratic engagement.

5. Methodology

A mixed-methods approach is adopted, combining statistical analysis with qualitative insights.

Quantitative Data Sources:

Election affidavits (ECI, ADR) The Times of India article titled "11 Uttar Pradesh MPs stare at
legal hurdle over criminal cases" highlights that at least 11 newly elected Members of Parliament
(MPs) from Uttar Pradesh are facing serious criminal charges. These charges include offenses
under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) with minimum punishments of two years or more, such as
those related to the National Rural Health Mission (NRHM) scam, the Gangsters Act, and money
laundering. If convicted and sentenced to two or more years, these MPs risk losing their seats in
Parliament.

The MPs come from various political parties, including the INDIA bloc, the National
Democratic Alliance (NDA), and the Azad Samaj Party. Notable individuals among them are:

 Babu Singh Kushwaha (Samajwadi Party): Elected from Jaunpur, he faces multiple
cases, including those related to the NRHM scam and possession of disproportionate
assets.
 Afzal Ansari (Samajwadi Party): Elected from Ghazipur, he has five criminal cases
against him. He was previously sentenced to four years in a Gangsters Act case, leading
to the loss of his Lok Sabha membership, which was later restored after the Supreme
Court suspended his sentence.
 Dharmendra Yadav (Samajwadi Party): Elected from Azamgarh, he faces four cases,
including one under IPC 270, which pertains to spreading a disease dangerous to life.
 Chandrashekhar Azad (Azad Samaj Party): Elected from Nagina, he faces 36 cases,
with charges framed in three separate cases, each carrying punishment exceeding two
years.
 Ram Bhual Nishad (Samajwadi Party): Elected from Sultanpur, he faces eight cases,
including one under the Gangsters Act.
 Imran Masood (Congress): Elected from Saharanpur, he faces eight cases, including a
money laundering case filed by the Enforcement Directorate.

These legal challenges underscore the ongoing issue of criminalisation in politics, where
individuals with serious criminal allegations continue to hold or contest for public office.
  Survey conducted across several constituencies

Qualitative Sources:

 Case studies of Azamgarh, Mau, and Ghazipur

📍 Azamgarh – Dharmendra Yadav (Samajwadi Party)

 Criminal Cases:Dharmendra Yadav has four criminal cases pending against him
citeturn0search0
 Election Victory:He won the Azamgarh seat in the 2024 Lok Sabha elections, securing
48.20% of the votes citeturn0search3
 Potential Disqualification:If convicted and sentenced to more than two years in any of
these cases, he risks losing his parliamentary membership citeturn0search9

📍 Mau – Mukhtar Ansari (Independent)

 Criminal Record Mukhtar Ansari had over 60 criminal cases registered against him,
including 16 related to murde. citeturn0search1
 Political Career He was elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly from the
Mau constituency five times, including twice as a Bahujan Samaj Party candidat.
citeturn0search4
 Demise He passed away on March 28, 2024, after a prolonged incarceration since
200. citeturn0search1

📍 Ghazipur – Afzal Ansari (Samajwadi Party)

 *Criminal Charges: Afzal Ansari was convicted in April 2023 under the Uttar Pradesh
Gangsters Act and sentenced to four years in prisn. citeturn0search2
 *Disqualification and Appeal: Following his conviction, he was disqualified from the
Lok Sabha. However, he filed an appeal, and the Allahabad High Court later granted him
bail but did not stay his convictin. citeturn0search11
 *Election Victory: Despite his legal challenges, he won the Ghazipur seat in the 2024
Lok Sabha elections on a Samajwadi Party tickt. citeturn0search17


  Interviews
 Content analysis of media and campaign materials

Sampling: Stratified random sampling for surveys; purposive sampling for case studies.

Tools:

 Structured questionnaires
 Face-to-face interviews

6. Literature Review

Here’s a brief Literature Review for your research on the Criminalisation of Politics in Uttar
Pradesh:

📚 Literature Review – In Brief

🔹 1. Milan Vaishnav – When Crime Pays (2017)

 A foundational work exploring why voters support criminal politicians.

 Argues that candidates with criminal backgrounds are often seen as effective “problem-
solvers” in weak institutional environments.
 Highlights the role of money, muscle, and patronage in electoral politics.

🔹 2. Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) Reports

 Annual reports reveal the rising number of elected representatives with serious criminal
cases.
 In Uttar Pradesh (2022), 37% of MLAs had criminal cases, 22% had serious charges.
 Provides empirical data and constituency-level insights.

🔹 3. Law Commission of India Reports

 Emphasize the need for reforms like disqualification at the stage of chargesheeting in
heinous crimes.
 Recommend fast-track courts and greater transparency.
🔹 4. Supreme Court Judgments

 Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): Mandated immediate disqualification of convicted

legislators.
 Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018): Directed political parties to publish
reasons for fielding tainted candidates.

🔹 5. PRS Legislative Research

 Provides analysis on pending bills related to electoral reforms.

 Highlights legislative gaps in addressing criminalisation.

The existing literature emphasizes that weak law enforcement, voter pragmatism, and party
interests are central to the persistence of criminalisation. While legal interventions have made
some progress, political and cultural resistance continues to undermine reforms.

Let me know if you'd like this expanded into a full section with citations for inclusion in your
paper.

7. Data Analysis and Findings

7.1 Criminal Representation

 37% of UP MLAs in the 2022 assembly declared criminal cases.

 22% faced serious charges such as murder, kidnapping, or extortion
(ADR 2022).

7.2 Voter Behavior

Would you vote for a candidate with a criminal record if they deliver development?

 Yes: 52%
 No: 35%
  Not Sure: 13%

Do you trust clean candidates to be effective?

 Yes: 29%
 No: 56%

 Not Sure: 15%

7.3 Development Outcomes

A comparative analysis between constituencies with criminal and non-criminal MLAs reveals
significant disparities:
🔹 1. Infrastructure Deficits

 Criminally tainted representatives often focus on personal or patronage-based projects

rather than inclusive infrastructure.
 Roads, electricity, and sanitation projects remain underdeveloped in many constituencies
despite repeated election victories by “strongmen.”

🔹 2. Poor Social Indicators

 Constituencies led by criminal politicians tend to underperform in health and education:

o Low school retention rates.
o Inadequate healthcare access in rural belts.
o Minimal investment in women and child welfare schemes.

🔹 3. Skewed Resource Allocation

 Development funds are often diverted toward loyal vote banks or used as political
leverage.
 Public works are contracted to cronies, leading to poor implementation and corruption.

🔹 4. Weak Institutional Governance

 Bureaucrats face pressure or threats from elected representatives with criminal records.
 Law and order mechanisms are compromised, making it hard to deliver state schemes
effectively.

🔹 5. Voter Disillusionment

 While some voters view such politicians as effective in the short term, many express
long-term dissatisfaction with poor public services and lack of accountability.

📌 Overall Insight:

Development in such constituencies is often narrow, selective, and transactional, not

systemic. The focus shifts from institutional growth to short-term populism and control, leading
to chronic underdevelopment.
8. Discussion

The data validates the proposed hypotheses. Voters in many constituencies perceive criminal
politicians as accessible, powerful, and capable of bypassing bureaucratic hurdles. Political
parties endorse them for their capacity to mobilize votes using muscle and money. These trends
have deleterious effects on governance, including poor development, rising inequality, and
weakened rule of law. Institutional inertia and lack of enforcement further aggravate the crisis.

9. Recommendations

Legal Reforms:

 Amend the Representation of People Act to disqualify candidates with

serious charges (framed by court).
 Establish fast-track courts for political criminal cases.

Electoral Reforms:

 Increase transparency in candidate selection.

 Enforce public disclosure rules with punitive consequences.
 Promote public funding of elections.

Political Accountability:

 Parties must publish justifications for fielding tainted candidates (SC

directive 2020).
 Voluntary party-level ethics charters.

Civic and Institutional Measures:

 Voter education campaigns on criminalisation and governance.

 Empower NGOs and media watchdogs.

10. Limitations

 Interviewees may withhold honest responses due to political fears.

 Affidavits may underreport or omit certain charges.
 Regional and linguistic barriers during survey execution.
11. Conclusion

Criminalisation of politics is both a symptom and a driver of democratic decay. In Uttar Pradesh,
this crisis is particularly acute and multidimensional. The electorate, political class, and
institutions must be jointly mobilised to reform the system. Otherwise, the quality of democracy
and public life will continue to deteriorate.

12. References

 Vaishnav, M. (2017). When Crime Pays. HarperCollins.

 ADR Reports (2020–2023)
 Election Commission of India
 NCRB Annual Reports (2020–2022)
 Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2013) 7 SCC 653
 Law Commission of India Reports
 PRS Legislative Research
 https://myneta.info/uttarpradesh2022/candidate.php?
candidate_id=4282