326 MPs, 14 CMs have criminal cases against them: Supreme Court told
A report placed before the Supreme Court in an ongoing public interest litigation on the criminalisation of politics recorded that 251 of 543 Lok Sabha members and 75 of 233 Rajya Sabha members have declared pending criminal cases
Chief Ministers of 14 out of 28 states have declared pending criminal cases against themselves, including some of a serious nature
The report recorded over 4,000 pending criminal cases against sitting and former MPs and MLAs across the country
The Court has directed that special courts be designated to exclusively try cases against sitting and former lawmakers to speed up disposal, with monthly monitoring of trial progress by the respective High Courts
The PIL on Criminalisation of Politics and the November 2023 Supreme Court Directions
The present report was filed in a long-running public interest litigation seeking expeditious trial of criminal cases against legislators, with a senior advocate appointed as amicus curiae to compile and present periodic data to the Court. In its order of 9 November 2023, the Supreme Court directed High Courts to register a suo motu case to set up special benches specifically to monitor pending trials against MPs and MLAs, directed that cases be prioritised by severity of punishment (offences punishable with death or life imprisonment first, then those punishable with five years or more), and restricted adjournments in such trials except for "rare and compelling reasons."
Key Details
- The November 2023 order required every High Court to constitute a monitoring bench and publish district-wise data on pending cases against legislators on its website
- Special courts are additionally being designated to try only cases against sitting/former MPs and MLAs, distinct from the general criminal court structure, to reduce case backlog and prevent delay-driven continuation in office
- The current report places pending cases at over 4,000, against roughly 5,175 cases recorded in the amicus curiae's 2023 submission — a reduction attributed to disposal under the monitoring framework, though a large number remain pending for over five years
- The Election Commission's mandate under Section 33A of the Representation of the People Act, 1951 requires candidates to declare pending criminal cases in their nomination affidavits, forming the base data used for such compilations
The 2026 report is a periodic compliance update to the Supreme Court's 2023 monitoring order, showing both progress (special courts, monthly review) and the continuing scale of the problem (250+ Lok Sabha members and 14 sitting Chief Ministers with declared cases).
Section 8, Representation of the People Act, 1951 — Disqualification on Conviction
Section 8 of the RPA, 1951 lays down the grounds on which a sitting or prospective legislator is disqualified from being a member on conviction for specified offences. It distinguishes between disqualification for specific offences (Section 8(1) and 8(2)) regardless of sentence length, and disqualification for any offence attracting imprisonment of two years or more (Section 8(3)), for a period of six years from release.
Key Details
- Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013) — the Supreme Court struck down Section 8(4) of the RPA, 1951, which had allowed a sitting MP/MLA/MLC to continue in office pending appeal against conviction; the Court held this created an unconstitutional distinction between sitting members and prospective candidates, and disqualification under Section 8(3) now takes effect immediately upon conviction, even for sitting members
- Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018) — a five-judge Constitution Bench held that courts cannot, on their own, add fresh grounds of disqualification (such as merely being charge-sheeted) beyond what Parliament has enacted in Section 8; instead, the Court directed candidates and political parties to widely publicise a candidate's criminal antecedents on party websites and in newspapers/electronic media
- Since Public Interest Foundation left the question of disqualifying candidates facing serious (but unconvicted) charges to the legislature, Parliament has not yet enacted such a law, meaning only conviction — not mere criminal charges — triggers disqualification under Section 8
- The current data on 251 Lok Sabha and 75 Rajya Sabha members with pending cases reflects members facing charges, not convictions — under existing law, none of them is automatically disqualified unless and until convicted under the Section 8 thresholds
The gap between "having a pending criminal case" (a disclosure requirement) and "being disqualified" (which requires conviction under Section 8) is precisely why the Supreme Court's intervention has focused on speeding up trials via special courts and monitoring, rather than on disqualifying sitting members outright.
- Lok Sabha members with declared pending criminal cases: 251 of 543
- Rajya Sabha members with declared pending criminal cases: 75 of 233
- Chief Ministers with declared pending criminal cases: 14 of 28
- Total pending criminal cases against current/former MPs and MLAs: over 4,000
- Supreme Court's monitoring order directing special benches in High Courts: 9 November 2023
- Lily Thomas v. Union of India: 2013 (struck down Section 8(4), RPA 1951)
- Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India: 2018 (five-judge bench; directed disclosure, not automatic disqualification, of pending charges)
- Disqualification threshold under Section 8(3), RPA 1951: conviction with sentence of 2 years or more imprisonment, disqualification for 6 years post-release