No to crime and corruption in Karnataka's Lok Sabha politics

Created:Sun, Oct 10, 2010 Updated: Sat, Oct 16, 2010
http://www.petitiononline.com/kalspoli/
http://www.adrindia.org/images/karnataka.pdf
Links to petitions on Karnataka's assembly politics are given below
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/no-to-crime-corruption-in-karnataka-politics/
http://www.petitiononline.com/kapolitc/
Karnataka state in India has 28 parliamentary or Lok Sabha (LS) or Lower House constituencies.
Summary for Lok Sabha (LS 2004 & LS 2009)
Karnataka MPs' pending criminal cases and pending serious criminal cases
In LS 2009, 09/28 (32%) MPs have pending criminal cases against them and 5 among (out of) these 9 MPs have pending serious criminal cases - BJP 6, INC 1 and JD[S] 2.
In LS 2004, 06/28 (21%) MPs had pending criminal cases against them and 2 among (out of) these 6 MPs had serious pending criminal cases - BJP 5, INC 0 and JD[S] 1.

LS 2004-LS 2009: The number of total
01) MPs with pending criminal cases has increased from 06 to 09 by 03 (50%).
02) pending criminal cases against MPs has increased from 13 to 32 by 19 (146%).
03) MPs with pending serious criminal cases has increased from 02 to 05 by 03 (150%).
04) serious IPC [Indian Penal Code] sections against MPs has increased from 06 in to 08 by 02 (33%).
05) crorepati/millionaire MPs has increased from 10 to 25 by 15 (150%).

150% increase in crorepati / millionaire K'taka MPs from 2004 to 2009
25/28 MPs from Karnataka are crorepatis / millionaires in LS 2009 as compared to 10/28 crorepatis / millionaires in LS 2004. There's been an increase of 150% in number of  crorepati / millionaire MPs from LS 2004.

500% increase in the average asset of a K'taka MP from 2004 to 2009
The average asset of a/an MP which was Rs 123 lakhs in LS 2004 rose to Rs 736 lakhs in LS 2009 by 613 (498~500%). The average asset of a/an MP in LS 2004 was Rs 123 lakhs which rose to Rs 736 lakhs in 2009. Between 2004 & 2009 there's been an average asset increase of almost 500% for MPs.

Average asset for a/an MP from Karnataka was Rs 7.36 crores. It's increased from 123 in 2004 to 736 in 2009 by 498%.

90% of all MPs in Karnataka are crorepatis
Among major parties, the average asset per MP for JD(S) was Rs. 18 crores, for BJP was Rs 6 crores and for INC was Rs. 5 crores. 100% of INC and JD(S) MPs are crorepatis. Almost 90% of all MPs in Karnataka are crorepatis.

25/28 89% MPs were crorepatis / millionaires - BJP 16/19 (82%), INC 06/06 (100%) and JD[S] 03/03 (100%).

PAN (Permanent Account Number) details of 03 K'taka MPs undeclared
03 (BJP 2 & INC 1) crorepati / millionaire MPs Out of a total of 28 MPs have/had not declared their PAN (Permanent Account Number) details even though their declarations are part of the affidavit. PAN details of 03/28 undeclared.

Only 01 out of 19 women candidates managed to win. 01/19 women candidates won.

Summary for Lok Sabha (LS) 2009 candidates
47/421 11% candidates declared pending criminal cases against them - BJP 10/28 (36%), INC 09/28 (32%) and JD(S) 07/21 (33%).

19/47 candidates had pending serious criminal cases like murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion etc. - BJP 04/19, JD(S) 04/19 and INC 03/19.

Candidates having pending criminal cases in K'taka LS 2009 & LS 2004
2009: 105 candidates of 04 main parties - BJP, INC, JD(S) and BSP. 32/105 (30%) had pending criminal cases against them.
2004: 87 candidates of 04 major parties - BJP, INC, JD(S) and BSP. 09/87 (10%) had pending criminal cases against them.

34 IPC charges of heinous nature in LS 2009
34 IPC charges of heinous nature which included murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, extortion, etc.

08 Red Alert constituencies in LS 2009
There were total 8 Red Alert constituencies where 03 or more contesting candidates had pending criminal cases. Bangalore rural had 05 candidates with pending criminal cases.

094/421 22% candidates were crorepatis / millionaires - BJP 23/28 (82%), INC 22/28 (79%) and JD[S] 17/21 (81%).

26 had declared zero assets.

106 declared liabilities above 5 lakhs.

Average approximate asset per candidate of a major party
The average approximate asset per candidate of a major party - JD(S) Rs.17 crores, BJP Rs.8 crores and INC Rs.5 crores. JD(S) candidates had average assets in excess of 16 crores and those of BJP had assets in excess of 7 crores.

260/421 62% candidates  had not furnished PAN (Permanent Account Number) card details.

019/427 (4%) were women and 408/427 (96%) were men.

191/421 (45%) were graduates & above.

None of the parties managed to get 50% votes. The highest votes polled were approx 42% by BJP and about 26% of the total registered voters.

Karnataka has 28 parliamentary constituencies.
Karnataka MPs vs/& candidates - Party wise break up
BJP--->19/28 MPs
INC--->06/28 MPs
JD(S)->03/21 MPs
Total->28

MPs with pending criminal cases
2004---------->06/28->21%->06 MPs
2009---------->09/28->32%->09 MPs
Increase------>03/28->MPs
%age increase->50%--->MPs

Total Pending criminal cases on MPs
2004---------->013-->cases
2009---------->032-->cases
Increase------>019-->cases
%age increase->146%->cases

MPs with pending serious criminal cases
2004---------->02/06->MPs
2009---------->05/09->MPs
Increase------>03---->MPs
%age increase->150%-->MPs

Total serious IPC sections against MPs
2004---------->06-->MPs
2009---------->08-->MPs
Increase------>02-->MPs
%age increase->33%->MPs

2009
09 MPs with pending criminal cases - party wise break up
BJP--->06/19 32%->06 MPs
INC--->01/06 17%->01 MP
JD(S)->02/03 67%->02 MPs

2004
06 MPs with pending criminal cases - party wise break up
BJP--->05/18 28%->05 MPs
INC--->00/08 00%->00 MP
JD(S)->01/02 50%->01 MP

2009
05 MPs with pending serious criminal cases - party wise break up
BJP--->03/19 16%->03 MPs
INC--->01/06 17%->01 MP
JD(S)->01/03 33%->01 MP

Contrasting this with Lok Sabha 2004, only 02 MPs had serious pending criminal cases.

Analysis based on assets- for MPs
Number of crorepati MPs
2004---------->10/28 MPs
2009---------->25/28 MPs
Increase------>15/28 MPs
%age increase->150%->MPs

Average Asset of a/an MP (Rs in lakhs)
2004---------->123
2009---------->736
Increase------>613
%age increase->498%

Crorepati MPs- Party wise break up
BJP--->16/19 084% MPs
INC--->06/06 100% MPs
JD(S)->03/03 100% MPs
Total->25/28 089% MPs of 03 major parties

Average assets for MPs
BJP--->19 Rs 06,22,56,920 ~ 06.23 Cror
INC--->06 Rs 05,32,26,289 ~ 05.32 Cror
JD(S)->03 Rs 18,62,09,781 ~ 18.62 Cror

Candidates of Lok Sabha 2009 declared pending criminal cases against them
47/421 11% candidates of Lok Sabha 2009 declared pending criminal cases against them - BJP 10/28 (36%), INC 09/28 (32%), BSP 06/28 (21%) and JD(S) 07/21 (33%).

Candidates of Lok Sabha 2009 having pending serious criminal cases
19/47 had pending serious criminal cases like murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion etc. - BJP 04/19 (14%), INC 03/19 (11%), BSP 03/28 (11%), and JD(S) 04/19 (19%)

47/421 candidates (11%) declared pending criminal cases against them in LS 2009
BJP---->10/028->36%
INC---->09/028->32%
BSP---->06/028->21%
JD(S)-->07/021->33%
IND---->13/257->05%->Independents
Others->02/059->03%->Other Parties
Total-->47/421->11%

Candidates with pending criminal cases in LS 2009
BJP---->10/028->36%
INC---->09/028->32%
BSP---->06/028->21%
JD(S)-->07/021->33%
Total-->32/105->30%

Candidates with pending criminal cases in LS 2004
BJP---->06/024->25%
INC---->01/027->04%
BSP---->01/008->13%
JD(S)-->01/028->04%
Total-->09/087->10%

Candidates of 04 main parties BJP, INC, JD(S) and BSP having pending criminal cases against them
2004->09/087->10%
2009->32/105->30%

19/47 had pending serious criminal cases (murder, attempt to murder, kidnapping, robbery, extortion etc.) in LS 2009
BJP---->04/47->14%
INC---->03/47->11%
BSP---->03/47->11%
JD(S)-->04/47->19%
IND---->04/47->02%->Independents
Others->01/47->02%->Other Parties
Total-->19/47->04%

Serious IPC section break up for candidates of major parties
VIOLENT CRIMES
IPC Description - Voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons or means
BJP--->01
INC--->01
JD(S)->00
BSP--->00
Total->02

IPC Description - kidnapping
BJP--->00
INC--->00
JD(S)->01
BSP--->00
Total->01

ROBBERY, EXTORTION, THEFT, CHEATING ETC
IPC Description - theft related
BJP--->00
INC--->00
JD(S)->01
BSP--->00
Total->01

IPC Description - Cheating and dishonesty, stolen property
BJP--->00
INC--->00
JD(S)->01
BSP--->05
Total->06

FINANCIAL FRAUD ETC (Financial Crimes like forgery, fraud, etc.)
IPC Description - forgery
BJP--->00
INC--->01
JD(S)->02
BSP--->06
Total->09

OTHER SERIOUS CRIMES
IPC Description - Promoting enmity between different groups on grounds of religion, race, place of birth, residence, language, etc., and doing acts prejudicial to maintenance of harmony
BJP--->04
INC--->00
JD(S)->00
BSP--->00
Total->04

IPC Description - undue influence or impersonation at an election
BJP--->00
INC--->01
JD(S)->00
BSP--->00
Total->01


IPC Description - false statements/ Illegal payments in connection with an election
BJP--->00
INC--->00
JD(S)->01
BSP--->00
Total->01

IPC Description - failure to keep election accounts
BJP--->00
INC--->00
JD(S)->01
BSP--->00
Total->01

IPC Description - Furnishing false information
BJP--->01
INC--->00
JD(S)->00
BSP--->00
Total->01

IPC Description - Injuring or defiling place of worship with intent to insult the religion of any class
BJP--->01
INC--->00
JD(S)->00
BSP--->00
Total->01

IPC Description - Deliberate and malicious acts, intended to outrage religious feelings or any class by insulting its religion or religious beliefs
BJP--->00
INC--->00
JD(S)->01
BSP--->00
Total->01

Analysis based on assets for candidates
Out of 421 affidavits analyzed for candidates who contested in LS 2009 elections, 94 were crorepatis. 82% of candidates of BJP were crorepatis and 79% of INC%u2019s candidates were crorepatis.

BJP---->23/028->82%
INC---->22/028->79%
JD(S)-->17/021->81%
BSP---->08/028->29%
IND---->16/257->06%->Independents
Others->08/059->14%->Other Parties
Total-->94/421->22%

Candidates of JD(S) had average assets in excess of 16.73 crores and those of BJP had assets in excess of 07.87 crores.
Party-->Average Assets----------------->Candidates->Average Assets in lakhs
BJP---->Rs 07,86,73,507 ~ 07.87 Cror -->028-------->0786
INC---->Rs 04,66,36,688 ~ 04.67 Cror -->028-------->0466
BSP---->Rs 00,90,51,566 ~ 90.51 Lacs -->028-------->0090
JD(S)-->Rs 16,72,96,446 ~ 16.73 Cror -->021-------->1672
Others->Rs 00,64,66,280 ~ 64.66 Lacs -->316-------->0064

Average approximate asset per candidate in crores
JD(S)->17 crores
BJP--->08 crores
INC--->05 crores

Value of assets---->candidates->MPs->%age
5 cr and above----->031-------->11->35%
50 lakhs to 5 cr--->107-------->17->16%
50-10 lakhs-------->095-------->00->00%
less than 10 lakhs->188-------->00->00%

Candidates
026->declared zero assets
106->declared liabilities above 5 lakhs

Candidates
Women->019 (04%)
Men--->408 (96%)
Total->427

Recommendations for Electoral & Political Reforms by ADR & NEW [PDF]
http://www.adrindia.org/images/pdf/recommendations_adrnew.pdf
http://www.petitiononline.com/inpolitc/
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/enact-undiluted-anti-corrupt-lok-pal-bill
http://www.petitiononline.com/lokpalbl/
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 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 of Lok Sabha 2009 with criminal cases pending against them, 74 facing charges of heinous crimes like murder / dacoity?

There have been candid MPs who declared that they are not fools to allow enactment of LOK PAL Bill (on India's anti-corrupt Ombudsman) and strike the axe at their own feet!

Our/The Indian Parliament has MPs from several Political Parties: which Party's consensus would be enough - and if any particular Party's consensus is enough, why should the other Parties demand that their voice also be respected?

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 Lok Pal (India's anti-corrupt Ombudsman) - repeatedly promised by the (former PM) Mr. Atal Behari Vajpayee (1999), by PM Dr. Manmohan Singh (2004) and by Mrs. Sonia Gandhi (UPA Chairperson) while releasing the Common Minimum Programme of UPA (1) government stating on its page 16 that the "Lok Pal Bill shall be made into a Law".

(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.

It has been our sad experience that Indian political executive always avoids mentioning the time frame for implementing their/its promises.

Respectfully we suggest for completing the required administrative orders and required legislations for the above three 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.

(iii) Appointing the Lok Pal (since next general elections to Parliament shall be held by May 2014) - the legislation for Lok Pal can be put through by a simple majority and the Statutory status (which can be given only by amending the Constitution), may be done later on, otherwise the Lok Pal will not be made operational even during the second tenure of 5 years of UPA.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This petiton's been addressed to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, Prime Minister (PM), President, Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC), Chief Election Commissioner (CEC), Election Commission of India (ECI) and National Anti-corrupt Ombudsman / Lok Pal.