14 of 28 chief ministers face serious criminal cases, Supreme Court told
A report placed before the Supreme Court states that 14 of India's 28 state chief ministers face serious criminal cases.
The report was filed by the senior advocate serving as amicus curiae in a decade-old Public Interest Litigation on expediting trials against sitting and former Members of Parliament (MPs) and Members of Legislative Assemblies (MLAs).
Of 543 Lok Sabha members, 251 have declared criminal cases, of which 170 involve serious offences; of 233 Rajya Sabha members, 75 have declared criminal cases, of which 40 are serious.
A total of 4,192 criminal cases are pending against sitting and former MPs/MLAs nationally; the amicus curiae recommended constituting designated Special Courts to exclusively try such cases, alongside regular High Court monitoring of pending trials.
Disqualification of Legislators on Conviction — Articles 102/191 and Section 8, RPA 1951
Articles 102(1)(e) and 191(1)(e) of the Constitution disqualify a person from being an MP or MLA "if so disqualified by or under any law made by Parliament" — the enabling law being the Representation of the People Act, 1951. Section 8 of the RPA, 1951 lays down disqualification on conviction for specified offences: Section 8(3) disqualifies a legislator convicted of any offence and sentenced to imprisonment of two years or more, for the period of imprisonment plus six years after release.
Key Details
- Section 8(4) of the RPA, 1951 earlier protected sitting MPs/MLAs from immediate disqualification by giving them three months to appeal a conviction; it was struck down as unconstitutional in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013), which held that Parliament cannot use ordinary legislation to override the immediate disqualification mandated by Articles 102 and 191.
- After Lily Thomas, Parliament attempted to reinstate the protection via the Representation of the People (Second Amendment and Validation) Bill, 2013, which was later withdrawn following public criticism.
- In Public Interest Foundation v. Union of India (2018), a Constitution Bench directed candidates to widely publicise their criminal antecedents (in newspapers/electronic media and to their political party) but declined to bar chargesheeted candidates from contesting elections, leaving that decision to Parliament.
The pending case referenced in the report is the continuation of judicial efforts (since Lily Thomas, and via the ongoing amicus curiae mechanism) to translate the constitutional disqualification framework into faster actual trials, since disqualification under Section 8 only bites upon final conviction — cases pending trial for years mean legislators continue to hold office despite serious charges.
The Amicus Curiae Mechanism and Judicial Monitoring of Legislator Trials
The Supreme Court has, since 2016, been monitoring a PIL seeking speedy disposal of criminal cases against lawmakers, appointing a senior advocate as amicus curiae to periodically report on the status of pending cases and recommend systemic fixes such as dedicated courts.
Key Details
- In a November 2023 order, the Court directed High Courts to constitute special benches to monitor speedy disposal of criminal cases against legislators, and ruled that no prosecution against a sitting or former MP/MLA may be withdrawn without the concerned High Court's permission.
- The amicus curiae's periodic reports (successive numbered reports over the years) form the evidentiary basis for the Court's continuing directions — the mechanism used to generate the current 14-of-28 chief ministers figure.
- The recommendation for exclusive Special Courts for MPs/MLAs builds on the Court's repeated observation that ordinary criminal courts' case backlog is a key reason trials against legislators drag on for years.
The "14 of 28 chief ministers" and MP/MLA figures originate directly from this amicus curiae reporting process, making the case a live example of judicial monitoring being used to compel executive/legislative action on a long-pending governance reform.
Vohra Committee (1993) and the Criminalisation-of-Politics Debate
The Vohra Committee (1993), set up by the Union Home Ministry, was the first official body to examine the nexus between criminal networks and politicians, bureaucrats, and elites, and remains the standard reference point for the "criminalisation of politics" theme in Indian polity.
Key Details
- The Vohra Committee report was not made public in full; only a summary was tabled in Parliament, and it recommended a nodal agency to collect and act on intelligence about the crime-politics nexus.
- The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR), formed following a 1999 Delhi High Court directive, has since institutionalised the practice of compiling candidates' criminal, financial, and educational affidavit disclosures (mandated for all candidates under Election Commission/Supreme Court directions) into public data used in reports of this kind.
- The Law Commission of India (244th Report, 2014) recommended disqualifying candidates facing charges for offences punishable with five years or more imprisonment, at the stage of framing of charges, subject to safeguards against misuse — a recommendation not yet enacted into law.
The report's finding that a majority of chief ministers and a large share of MPs/MLAs face criminal cases is the empirical continuation of the concern first flagged institutionally by the Vohra Committee three decades ago, and situates the current judicial push for special courts within the larger, still-unresolved debate on electoral and legislative reform.
- 14 of 28 chief ministers face serious criminal cases, per the amicus curiae's report to the Supreme Court.
- Lok Sabha: 251 of 543 MPs (about 46%) have declared criminal cases; 170 involve serious offences.
- Rajya Sabha: 75 of 233 members have declared criminal cases; 40 are serious.
- 4,192 criminal cases are pending nationally against sitting/former MPs and MLAs; 1,243 were decided and 1,050 newly registered in 2025.
- Section 8(3), Representation of the People Act, 1951: disqualification on conviction with a sentence of 2+ years, for the sentence period plus 6 years.
- Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2013): struck down Section 8(4) RPA, 1951, mandating immediate disqualification on conviction.
- Supreme Court order (November 2023): directed High Courts to set up special monitoring benches for legislator trials; barred withdrawal of such prosecutions without High Court permission.