Association for Democratic Reforms Report September 2025

Association for Democratic Reforms Report September 2025

Why in News? 

Recently, the Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) released a report in September 2025 highlighting that nearly half of the ministers in India face criminal charges. These findings raise serious concerns about accountability and ethics in public leadership.

Findings of the Association for Democratic Reforms Report, September 2025

• Ministers with Criminal Cases: The ADR assessment in 2025 reviewed a total of 643 ministers drawn from 27 state assemblies, 3 Union Territories, and the Union Council of Ministers, and it revealed that 302 of them, almost half of the total, have criminal charges registered against them. With 174 of these cases falling under the serious crime category including allegations of murder, kidnapping, and offences against women.

• Party-Wise Distribution: The analysis provided a breakdown by party to reveal sharp contrasts.

• • 1. The BJP, which commands the largest ministerial strength in the country, accounted for 136 ministers with criminal cases out of 336, which translates to around 40 percent, and within this 88 are battling charges of a serious nature.
    2. The Congress, which governs in a smaller number of states, displayed an even higher ratio as 45 out of its 61 ministers, or nearly three-fourths, reported criminal cases in their affidavits, and within this section 18 are linked to grave charges.
    3. The Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam showed very high proportions as well, since 27 of its 31 ministers, or almost nine out of ten, admitted pending cases, and among them 14 are associated with serious offences.
    4. The Telugu Desam Party reflected the most alarming data as 22 out of its 23 ministers, which equals 96 percent of its representation, disclosed criminal cases, and 13 of these relate to serious crimes.
    5. The Aam Aadmi Party had 11 of its 16 ministers, about 69 percent, facing cases, whereas the Trinamool Congress revealed that 13 of its 40 ministers, or roughly one-third, are linked to criminal charges.
    6. At the central level, the Union Council of Ministers reported 29 out of 72 members, which means two out of every five, currently facing criminal proceedings.

• State-Level Analysis: The study indicated that more than 60 percent of ministers in eleven state assemblies and Union Territories, including Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Bihar, Odisha, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Punjab, Telangana, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi, and Puducherry, are under criminal shadow, while in Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Nagaland, and Uttarakhand, none of the ministers reported criminal cases.

• Wealth Profiles: The report also calculated the financial dimension. According to the report the average wealth of a minister stood at ₹37.21 crore, with the combined value of assets declared by all 643 ministers reaching ₹23,929 crore.

• The study reported that 11 state assemblies included billionaire ministers, with Karnataka leading the chart with eight, followed by Andhra Pradesh with six and Maharashtra with four, and at the Union level six ministers, which form 8 percent of the total, disclosed assets above ₹1,000 crore.

• • 1. Among national and regional parties, the BJP had the largest count with 14 billionaire ministers though this was just 4 percent of its total strength.
    2. The Congress had 11 such ministers forming 18 percent of its members, while the TDP reported six billionaire ministers representing more than one-fourth of its strength.
    3. Other parties like AAP, JD(S), NCP, Shiv Sena, and Janasena are also reporting billionaire leaders.

• Wealthiest Ministers: The richest political leader as per the ADR report is Dr. Chandra Sekhar Pemmasani of the TDP from Guntur in the Lok Sabha, whose assets exceed ₹5,705 crore, followed by Karnataka’s D.K. Shivakumar with more than ₹1,413 crore, and Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu with assets above ₹931 crore.

• With other names like Narayana Ponguru, Nara Lokesh, Gaddam Vivekanand, Ponguleti Srinivasa Reddy, Suresha B.S., Mangal Prabhat Lodha, and Union Minister Jyotiraditya Scindia also featuring in the top tier of wealth.

• Ministers with Minimal Assets: The report also pointed to ministers with very modest resources such as Sukla Charan Noatia of the Indigenous Peoples Front of Tripura, who declared only ₹2 lakh, and Birbaha Hansda of the Trinamool Congress, who reported assets slightly above ₹3 lakh, showing the vast financial gap.

Causes of Increasing Criminalisation of Politics

• Weak Legal Framework: One major reason behind the rise of criminalisation in politics is the weak legal framework and the slow pace of judicial trials. The long duration of court proceedings allows leaders with criminal backgrounds to contest elections without restriction. Since conviction in serious cases takes years, accused leaders often continue to hold office and gain political legitimacy, which encourages more individuals with criminal records to enter politics.

• Influence of Money: The growing cost of elections has increased the entry of candidates with financial and physical influence. Money is used to manage large campaign expenses, mobilize crowds, and gain visibility, while muscle power is used to intimidate opponents or voters. Parties prefer candidates with resources, even if they face criminal accusations, because they see them as more “winnable.”

• Lack of Internal Party Democracy: The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (2008) pointed out that internal party democracy in India is weak, and decision-making often remains in the hands of a few leaders. Parties prioritize winnability over integrity, and therefore individuals with money, muscle, or strong caste-based networks are given preference in ticket distribution.

• Social Acceptance: The Centre for the Study of Developing Societies (CSDS) in a survey of 2019 found that many voters are willing to overlook criminal records if the candidate is seen as strong or capable of solving local problems. People sometimes view such leaders as protectors who can deliver quick justice outside weak state mechanisms. This acceptance at the grassroots level gives space for criminal elements to remain in politics.

Constitutional Safeguards Against Criminalisation of Politics

• Disqualification: The Representation of the People Act, 1951 works alongside constitutional principles to prevent misuse of political power. 

• Section 8 of the Act clearly states that a person convicted of certain offences is disqualified from contesting elections for a specific period. 

• The Supreme Court in Lily Thomas vs Union of India (2013) ruled that any legislator convicted of a crime with a sentence of two years or more stands immediately disqualified. 

• 1. In Public Interest Foundation vs Union of India (2018), the court directed political parties to publish details of criminal cases of their candidates, both on official websites and in media platforms. 
•  Accountability: The Constitution empowers institutions like the Election Commission of India to frame rules and guidelines that uphold free and fair elections. 
  1. Under Article 324, the Election Commission has broad authority to supervise elections, and this includes enforcing transparency about candidates with criminal charges. 
  2. Several reform proposals by the Law Commission in 2014 and the Second Administrative Reforms Commission in 2008 recommended stricter disqualification rules and faster trials of candidates with pending cases. 

Impact of Criminalisation of Politics

• Erosion of Public Trust: Criminalisation in politics directly impacts the erosion of trust in democratic institutions. Citizens expect elected representatives to act with honesty and responsibility, but when ministers face criminal cases, it weakens faith in governance. People begin to feel that politics is dominated by self-interest rather than public service.

• Weakening of Rule of Law: The presence of leaders with serious charges undermines the principle of rule of law. When individuals accused of serious crimes like murder or kidnapping are part of the government, it sends a signal that political power can shield lawbreakers. This perception discourages law enforcement agencies from acting without bias. This damages the credibility of democratic institutions.

• Distortion of Policy Priorities: Leaders with criminal backgrounds often focus on strengthening their networks rather than pursuing long-term development policies. Public resources are sometimes diverted for personal gain, and this limits the ability of governments to address issues like poverty and unemployment effectively.

• Entrenchment of Corruption: The criminalisation of politics fuels corruption and deepens inequality in society. When ministers with enormous wealth combine political power with pending criminal cases, the outcome often favors elites instead of ordinary citizens. Such disparities increase the influence of money in decision-making, and ordinary citizens find it harder to access justice or equal opportunities. 

Way Forward

• There is a need to introduce stricter disqualification rules for candidates with serious criminal charges. Fast-track courts should handle such cases within a fixed time frame, as recommended by the Law Commission in 2014, so trials are not delayed for years.
• Political parties must take greater responsibility in candidate selection. They should deny tickets to individuals facing grave charges, and the Election Commission of India should enforce penalties for non-compliance.
• Voter awareness must be improved through public campaigns and easy access to criminal records of candidates. It is mandatory for all parties in India to publish criminal details of candidates, but this requires stronger and broader enforcement.
• Transparent funding systems, state support for candidates, and strict monitoring of expenses can create a level playing field and reduce the incentive for criminalisation in politics.

Related Article: ADR Report on Registered Unrecognised Political Parties in India