Analysis of Criminal Background, Financial, Education, Gender and other details of West Bengal Sitting MLAs

Dear Friends, Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and West Bengal Election Watch have analyzed the criminal, financial and other background details of 282 out of 294 sitting MLAs. In the current assembly, 10 seats are vacant. Two MLAs namely SUDARSAN GHOSH DOSTIDAR of AITC and ALI IMRAN RAMZ of AIFB are not analysed due to unclear affidavits available on the ECI website at the time of making this report. This analysis is based on the affidavits submitted by the candidates prior to the 2016 Assembly elections and bye elections conducted thereafter. For the complete reports in Hindi and English, please see: https://adrindia.org/content/west-bengal-assembly-election-2016-analysis-criminal-background-financial-education-gender CRIMINAL BACKGROUND MLAs with criminal cases: Out of 282 sitting MLAs analysed, 104(37%) MLAs have declared criminal cases against themselves. MLAs with serious criminal cases: 90(32%) MLAs have declared serious criminal cases. MLAs with declared cases related to murder: 7 MLAs have declared cases related to murder (IPC section 302). MLAs with declared cases related to attempt to murder: 24 MLA has declared cases related to attempt to murder (IPC section 307). MLAs with cases related to Crimes against Women: 10 MLAs have declared cases related to crimes against women (IPC Section-354). Party wise sitting MLAs with criminal cases: 68(33%) out of 205 MLAs from AITC, 20(51%) out of 39 MLAs from INC, 11(46%) out of 24 MLAs from CPI(M), 3(50%) out of 6 MLAs from BJP and 1(100%) out of 1 each MLAs from CPI and Independent have declared criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits. Party wise sitting MLAs with serious criminal cases: 61(30%) out of 205 MLAs from AITC, 15(39%) out of 39 MLAs from INC, 10(42%) out of 24 MLAs from CPI(M), 3(50%) out of 6 MLAs from BJP and 1(100%) out of 1 MLA from Independent have declared serious criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.

Analysis of Criminal Background, Financial, Education, Gender and other details of Puducherry Sitting MLAs

 CRIMINAL BACKGROUND

• MLAs with criminal cases: Out of 30 sitting MLAs analysed, 11 (37%) MLAs have declared criminal cases against themselves.
  
  
• MLAs with serious criminal cases: 4 (13%) MLAs have declared serious criminal cases.
  
  
•  MLAs with declared cases related to murder:  1 MLA has declared case related to murder (IPC section 302).
  
  
• MLAs with declared cases related to attempt to murder: 1 MLA has declared case related to attempt to murder (IPC section 307).
  
  
• Party wise sitting MLAs with criminal cases: 6 (40%) out of 15 MLAs from INC, 2 (29%) out of 7 MLAs from ALL INDIA N.R. CONGRESS, 1 (25%) out of 4 MLAs  from AIADMK and 2 (67%) out of 3 MLA from DMK have declared criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.
  
  
• Party wise sitting MLAs with serious criminal cases:  3 (20%) out of 15 MLAs from INC and 1 (14%) out of 7 MLAs from ALL INDIA N.R. CONGRESS have declared serious criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.

India dropped from Freedom House’s list of 'free' countries

 Impartiality and competence of EC questioned

In its latest report the US watchdog observes that the free world had shrunk as a result and that the country was being driven towards 'authoritarianism'

 “Under Modi, India appears to have abandoned its potential to serve as a global democratic leader, elevating narrow Hindu nationalist interests at the expense of its founding values of inclusion and equal rights for all.”

“A new report from the independent watchdog group Freedom House is sobering. Authoritarianism and nationalism are on the rise around the world. Governments are becoming less transparent and have lost the trust of the people…,” US secretary of state Antony Blinken  said.

 “India’s status declined from free to partly free due to a multiyear pattern in which the Hindu nationalist government and its allies have presided over rising violence and discriminatory policies affecting the Muslim population and pursued a crackdown on expressions of dissent by the media, academics, civil society groups, and protesters.”

Some of the specific reasons for the change in scores on various counts that resulted in India losing its “free” status include the frequent use of the sedition law and other charges to deter free speech, the restrictions on foreign funding of NGOs and the action against Amnesty which resulted in it shutting shop in India, “the unusual appointment of a recently retired chief justice to the upper house of Parliament”, and the “excessively harsh” lockdown that triggered the displacement of millions.

 the Modi government and its state-level allies continued to crack down on critics in 2020, and “their response to Covid-19 included a ham-fisted lockdown that resulted in the dangerous and unplanned displacement of millions of internal migrant workers”.

It also took note of the “corona jihad” narrative whereby “the ruling Hindu nationalist movement also encouraged the scapegoating of Muslims, who were disproportionately blamed for the spread of the virus and faced attacks by vigilante mobs”. 

“Political rights and civil liberties in the country have deteriorated since Narendra Modi became Prime Minister in 2014, with increased pressure on human rights organisations, rising intimidation of academics and journalists, and a spate of bigoted attacks, including lynchings, aimed at Muslims. The decline only accelerated after Modi’s reelection in 2019,” the report said.

“Last year, the government intensified its crackdown on protesters opposed to a discriminatory citizenship law and arrested dozens of journalists who aired criticism of the official pandemic response. Judicial independence has also come under strain; in one case, a judge was transferred immediately after reprimanding the police for taking no action during riots in New Delhi that left over 50 people, mostly Muslims, dead,” the report pointed out.

It took note of the law curbing inter-faith marriages in Uttar Pradesh.

 it placed on record questions raised about the impartiality and competence of the Election Commission of India.

“The Commission is generally respected and had been thought to function without undue political interference. In 2019, however, its impartiality and competence were called into question. The panel’s decisions concerning the timing and phasing of national elections, and allegations of selective enforcement of the Model Code of Conduct, which regulates politicians’ campaign behaviour and techniques, suggested bias toward the ruling BJP.”

The report flagged as a cause of concern “the opaque financing of political parties, notably through electoral bonds that allow donors to obscure their identities”.

The report noted that a great deal of corruption cases go unreported and unpunished, and “the authorities have been accused of selective, partisan enforcement”. 

The delay in setting up the Lokpal and Lokayuktas has been recorded, as also the diluting of the RTI law by the Modi government. 

The attacks on the media have found mention, and the perception that the Prime Minister’s call to the media to help prevent the spread of “pessimism, negativity, and rumour mongering” was a warning not to criticise officials’ management of the pandemic.

“Academic freedom has significantly weakened in recent years, as intimidation of professors, students, and institutions over political and religious issues has increased.... Academics face pressure not to discuss topics deemed sensitive by the BJP government, particularly India’s relations with Pakistan and conditions in Indian Kashmir,” the report said.

The above are some excerpts of the Report which was published in the Telegraph of 4.3.21

Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Kerala Election Watch

 Dear Friends,

Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) and Kerala Election Watch have analyzed the criminal, financial and other background details of 132 out of 140 sitting MLAs. In the current assembly, 4 seats are vacant. There are 4 MLAs who have not been analysed due to unavailability of their properly scanned and complete affidavits, at the time of making this report. This analysis is based on the affidavits submitted by the candidates prior to the 2016 Assembly elections and bye elections conducted thereafter.

For the complete report in English, please see: https://adrindia.org/content/kerala-assembly-election-2016-analysis-criminal-background-financial-education-gender-and

CRIMINAL BACKGROUND

• MLAs with criminal cases: Out of 132 sitting MLAs analysed, 86(65%) MLAs have declared criminal cases against themselves.

•  MLAs with serious criminal cases: 28(21%) MLAs have declared serious criminal cases.

•  MLAs with declared cases related to murder:  2 MLAs have declared cases related to murder (IPC section 302).

•  MLAs with declared cases related to attempt to murder: 6 MLAs have declared cases related to attempt to murder (IPC section 307).

•  MLAs with declared cases related to Crime against Women: 1 MLA has declared cases related to Crime against Women (IPC section 354).

• Party wise sitting MLAs with criminal cases: 51(91%) out of 56 MLAs from CPI(M), 12(63%) out of 19 MLAs from CPI, 9(45%) out of 20 MLAs  from INC, 5(28%) out of 18 MLAs from IUML and 4(67%) out of 6 MLAs from Independent have declared criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.

• Party wise sitting MLAs with serious criminal cases:  18(32%) out of 56 MLAs from CPI(M), 3(16%) out of 19 MLAs from CPI, 2(11%) out of 18 MLAs from IUML and 5(25%) out of 20 MLAs from INC have declared serious criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.