Political parties across five Indian states — Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal, and Puducherry — failed to comply with a 2003 Supreme Court order mandating that they publicly explain the reasons for fielding candidates with pending criminal cases against them, according to a report released by the Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) on September 11.
The ADR, a well-known electoral rights NGO, analysed nomination papers filed by candidates in the recent state assembly elections across these five regions. Of the 8,848 total candidates who contested, 1,214 had declared criminal cases against them. However, when parties were expected to submit written justifications under Form C-7 — explaining why such individuals were chosen as electoral contenders — many fell short, leaving large gaps in public accountability.
The Supreme Court's landmark direction emerged from a PIL filed by the ADR itself in 2003, which compelled political parties to disclose whether their candidates had faced criminal charges. While the ruling was intended to push parties towards cleaner electoral behaviour, critics argue that the C-7 disclosure remains one of the most loosely enforced aspects of the order.
In several constituencies, candidates with serious pending cases — including charges under the Indian Penal Code related to assault, extortion, and even murder — were given tickets by major national and regional parties alike. The failure to publish reasoned explanations in C-7 forms means voters lack critical information when choosing their representatives.
Legal experts and election reform advocates have called the non-compliance a significant setback for transparency in Indian elections. They point out that without enforced accountability, the Supreme Court's directive amounts to little more than a procedural exercise.
