This story originally appeared at www.biharkhojkhabar.com
Corruption and Criminalization are two distinctive features of the Indian politics. The crusade against corruption was loudly articulated by the social activist Anna Hazare however, there is little noise being made by the civil society about the criminalization of Indian politics. 
The Three Amendments
The RPA amendment to RPA obviously suffers from an obsession to undo the efforts of the Supreme Court and the E.C. tried to combat criminalisation of politics and make the electoral process transparent. Some of the significant points that makes a cozy path for criminals to maneuvered their SUVs to parliament and assemblies.
Amendment 1 The amendment made way for candidates to escape disclosing assets and educational qualifications. Under the proposed Section 33A - another section which the Bill seeks to add to the RPA - it has been clarified that candidates must furnish information only under the RPA and rules. What it means is that the E.C. cannot claim any power under Article 324 of the Constitution to demand additional information about candidates. This effectively nullifies the E.C's order requiring the disclosure of assets and educational qualifications.
Amendment 2 The list is by no means exhaustive, and there seems to be a motive behind excluding some offences. For instance, Section 153-A of the IPC, which makes promoting enmity between different groups on the grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language and so on an offence, is not included in the list. Had it been included, many members of the Sangh Parivar - who are today Ministers at the Centre and in the States - could invite disqualification. Deputy Prime Minister L.K. Advani and his ministerial colleagues Murli Manohar Joshi and Uma Bharati face trial on the charge of complicity in the demolition of the Babri Masjid in 1992. They have been charged by a trial court for various offences, including those under Section 153-A.
Amendment 3 The Bill adds a new section - Section 8B - to the RPA. Under it, a person against whom charges have been framed by a court of competent jurisdiction in two separate criminal proceedings concerning heinous offences at least six months before his or her nomination for an election is filed, shall be disqualified until his or her acquittal or discharge in such proceeding
This no. 3 is set to discourage good people to contest elections. As goons, powerful and politician with criminal background would indiscriminately use their muscles to put down on promising good candidates who may challenge them in forthcoming elections. Moreover, in India it is too common that political murders gets rises before elections. And six month is quite enough to map the battlefield.
Parliament Turns Into Criminals’ Den
Revealed by the joint report this June, by the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and the National Election Watch (NEW) was based on affidavits filed by candidates during elections since 2004. According to its analysis a candidate with a clean record has 12 percent chance of winning the election whereas for a candidate with a criminal record, the chance of winning is 23 percent. What's a mockery of democracy.
There is an increase of about 26% in MPs with pending criminal cases and 31% increase in the number of MPs with serious pending criminal cases. Obviously, these are not the type of people that should represent we the people of India, but some how these heavy weight crooks have got themselves elected into the Parliament and have become part of the governing apparatus of the country by default.
Once the quantum of punishment is pronounced by a CBI court next month, Masood faces the prospects of losing his membership of Rajya Sabha as per the apex court order.
Moreover, Laloo Yadav an important prospective ally of UPA in general elections 2014 is about to get the final judgement this very week by a CBI court in 900 crore rupee fodder scam case.
Need of the Hour
So in such a situation the principal issue to how to make it harder for those with criminal cases to contest elections. Obviously, as the UPA gets united on terms of saving skins of herself and her allies, all efforts to cleanse the system got severe jolt. This recent affront move by the government in power has maneuvered the law for its ease and embrasses the whole democracy as puppet in the hand of MPs celebrating the supremacy of Parliament over judiciary
Though the BJP expressed its displeasure over the development, had it been really interested it would had opposed the Bill in LS itself. While supporting the Bill at LS the BJP eader of the Opposition Arun Jaitley said the Supreme Court order empowered a policeman to decide the fate of those seeking to contest elections. “Police became the final arbitrator who can contest and who cannot... Are we going to risk the democracy to the police?” he asked. No Sir, no, nope, never. In India you politician can not risk the democracy even to the people and courts.
