Indictment on democracy

Even as India celebrated its 80th Independence, the latest report submitted to the Supreme Court has brought into sharp focus a disturbing reality of Indian democracy. According to the report submitted on August 17, 2026 by senior advocate Vijay Hansaria (the court-appointed amicus curiae), 326 sitting MPs have declared criminal cases against themselves. This includes 251 of the 543 Lok Sabha members and 75 of the 233 Rajya Sabha members. More worrying is that 210 of them, 170 Lok Sabha members and 40 Rajya Sabha members, have declared serious cases involving offences punishable by five years or more in prison. These figures are too large to be dismissed as isolated cases. They point to a deeper problem in the political system. Yet it must be made clear that facing a criminal case does not mean that a politician is guilty. A case is an allegation, not a conviction. Some cases may be politically motivated, false or eventually dismissed. Every accused person has the right to a fair trial and the presumption of innocence must remain fundamental to democracy. Further, the report says 14 of India’s 28 chief ministers have also been accused in criminal cases. At the same time, 4,192 cases involving current and former MPs and MLAs remain pending. Courts disposed of 1,243 such cases in 2025, but 1,050 new cases were registered during the same year. This shows why the backlog remains stubbornly high. Justice is simply not moving fast enough. The figures from some states are particularly glaring. In Kerala, 19 of 20 MPs have declared criminal cases, including 11 involving serious offences. Telangana has 14 of 17 MPs with criminal cases, Odisha 16 of 21, Jharkhand 10 of 14 and Tamil Nadu 26 of 39. These figures are not a judgment on the voters of these states. They should instead make political parties and voters ask why candidates facing such allegations continue to find acceptance. This is where the deeper democratic question begins. Why do political parties keep giving tickets to candidates facing serious criminal cases? Why do money and muscle power continue to shape elections? And why does justice take so long that an accused person can contest, win and serve several terms before the case is decided? True, an accused is innocent until proven guilty, but democracy also depends on public trust in those who make the laws. When large numbers of lawmakers face criminal cases, that trust is weakened. The issue is not only whether they are guilty, but whether political parties and voters are willing to demand higher standards from public representatives. When lawmakers themselves face serious cases, the line between lawmaker and lawbreaker begins to look dangerously blurred. Parliament is expected to be the highest forum of lawmaking. It is therefore deeply troubling when a substantial number of those entrusted with making laws are themselves facing criminal proceedings. This does not mean that every accused MP should be declared unfit or guilty before trial. That would violate due process. But political parties cannot hide behind the presumption of innocence when deciding whom to nominate, especially where serious criminal charges are involved. The Supreme Court report has proposed Special Courts dealing exclusively with cases involving MPs and MLAs and faster disposal of cases. These measures deserve serious consideration. Justice delayed affects not only the accused and complainant but also public confidence in democracy.