Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections 2022 Phase III: Analysis of Criminal Background, Financial, Education, Gender and other Details of Candidates

38 views

Skip to first unread message

ADR India

unread,

Feb 15, 2022, 4:45:39 AM2/15/22

to national-el...@googlegroups.com, national...@googlegroups.com

Press Release

15th February, 2022

Dear Friends,

The Uttar Pradesh Election Watch and Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) have analysed the self-sworn affidavits of 623 candidates out of 627, who are contesting in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections Phase III.

The full reports in English and Hindi can be accessed here:https://adrindia.org/content/uttar-pradesh-assembly-elections-2022-phase-3-analysis-criminal-background-financial

Uttar Pradesh Election Watch and ADR have not analysed 4 candidates as their affidavits were either badly scanned or complete affidavits were not uploaded on the ECI website. The details of these candidates are given below:

S.No.	Name	District	Constituency	Party
1	Kailash Lodhi	Etah	Aliganj	Jan Adhikar Party
2	Naveen Verma	Auraiya	Bidhuna	Independent
3	Rais Ahmad	Jalaun	Kalpi	Rashtriya Viklang Party
4	Kamlesh Kumar	Kasganj	Patiyali	Moulik Adhikar Party

Table: List of Candidates not analysed

Summary and Highlights

Criminal Background

Candidates with Criminal Cases: Out of 623 candidates analyzed, 135 (22%) candidates have declared criminal cases against themselves.

Candidates with Serious Criminal Cases: 103(17%) have declared serious criminal cases against themselves.

Figure: Party Wise Percentage of Candidates with Criminal Cases

Party wise Candidates with Criminal Cases: Among the major parties,30(52%) out of 58 candidates analysed from SP, 25(46%) out of 55 candidates analysed from BJP, 23 (39%) out of 59 candidates analysed from BSP, 20 (36%) out of 56 candidates analysed from INC and 11 (22%) out of 49 candidates analysed from AAP have declared criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.

Party wise Candidates with Serious Criminal Cases: Among the major parties,21(36%) out of 58 candidates analysed from SP, 20(36%) out of 55 candidates analysed from BJP, 18(31%) out of 59 candidates analysed from BSP, 10(18%) out of 56 candidates analysed from INC and 11 (22%) out of 49 candidates analysed from AAP have declared serious criminal cases against themselves in their affidavits.

Candidates with declared cases related to crime against women: 11 candidates have declared cases related to crime against women. Out of 11 candidates 2 candidates have declared cases related to rape (IPC Section-376).

Candidates with declared cases related to murder: 2 candidates have declared cases related to murder (IPC Section-302) against themselves.

Candidates with declared cases related to attempt to murder: 18 candidates have declared cases related to Attempt to murder (IPC Section-307) against themselves.

Red Alert Constituencies*: 26(44%) out of 59 constituencies are Red alert constituencies. Red alert constituencies are those where 3 or more contesting candidates have declared criminal cases against themselves.

The directions of the Supreme Court have had no effect on the political parties in selection of candidates in Phase III of the Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections as they have again followed their old practice of giving tickets to around 22% candidates with criminal cases. All major parties contesting in Uttar Pradesh phase III elections have given tickets to 22 % to 52 % candidates who have declared criminal cases against themselves. The Supreme Court in its directions dated 13th February, 2020 had specifically instructed political parties to give reasons for such selection and why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates. As per these mandatory guidelines, the reasons for such selection has to be with reference to qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned. During the recent 6 State Assembly elections held in 2020-21, it was observed that political parties gave unfounded and baseless reasons like popularity of the person, does good social work, cases are politically motivated etc. These are not sound and cogent reasons for fielding candidates with tainted backgrounds. This data clearly shows that political parties have no interest in reforming the electoral system and our democracy will continue to suffer at the hands of lawbreakers who become lawmakers.

Financial Background

Figure: Share of Wealth among the Contesting Candidates

Share of wealth among candidates: The share of wealth amongst the candidates contesting in the Uttar Pradesh assembly elections 2022 phase III is as follows:

Value of assets (Rs.)	Number of candidates	Percentage of Candidates
5 crores and above	88	14%
2 crores to 5 crores	83	13%
50 lakhs to 2 crores	150	24%
10 lakhs to 50 lakhs	165	27%
less than 10 lakhs	137	22%

Table: Share of wealth amongst contesting candidates

Crorepati Candidates: Out of the 623 candidates, 245(39%) are crorepatis.

Party wise Crorepati Candidates: The role of money power in our elections is evident from the fact that all major political parties give tickets to wealthy candidates. Among the major parties 52(90%) out of 58 candidates analysed from SP, 48(87%) out of 55 candidates analysed from BJP, 46(78%) out of 59 candidates analysed from BSP, 29(52%) out of 56 candidates analysed from INC and 18(37%) out of 49 candidates analysed from AAP have declared assets valued more than Rs 1 crore.

Figure: Party Wise Percentage of Crorepati Candidates

Average assets: The average of assets per candidate contesting in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections 2022 Phase III is Rs 2.82 Crores.
Party wise average assets: Among major parties, the average assets per candidate for 58 SP candidates analysed is Rs. 9.19 Crores, 55 BJP candidates analysed is Rs 6.74 Crores, 56 INC candidates have average assets of Rs 4.60 Crores, 59 BSP candidates have average assets of Rs 4.28 Crores and 49 AAP candidates have average assets worth Rs. 1.31 Crores.

High asset candidates: The details of top 3 candidates with highest declared assets, contesting in the Uttar Pradesh Assembly Elections Phase III are given below:

S.No.	Name	District	Constituency	Party Name	Movable Assets (Rs)	Immovable Assets (Rs)	Total Assets (Rs)	PAN Given
1	Yashpal Singh Yadav	Jhansi	Babina	SP	41,29,04,691	29,45,00,000	70,74,04,691 70 Crore+	Y
2	Ajay Kapoor	Kanpur Nagar	Kidwai Nagar	INC	12,14,24,571	57,31,92,700	69,46,17,271 69 Crore+	Y
3	Pramod Kumar	Kanpur Nagar	Arya Nagar	INC	2,90,95,061	42,87,39,800	45,78,34,861 45 Crore+	Y

Table: Top three candidates with highest declared assets

Zero assets candidates: There are 2 candidates who have declared zero assets. The details of these candidates are given below:

S.No.	Name	District	Constituency	Party Name	Movable Assets (Rs)	Immovable Assets (Rs)	Total Assets (Rs)	PAN Given
1	Raja Babu	Etah	Jalesar (Sc)	IND	0	0	0	N
2	Rahul Pratap Singh	Etah	Jalesar (Sc)	IND	0	0	0	N

Table: Candidates with declared zero assets

Low assets candidates: The details of three candidates with lowest assets (excluding zero assets candidates) are as follows:

S.No.	Name	District	Constituency	Party Name	Movable Assets (Rs)	Immovable Assets (Rs)	Total Assets (Rs)	PAN Given
1	Devraj	Mahoba	Mahoba	IND	10,000	0	10,000 10 Thou+	Y
2	Ramdas	Kanpur Nagar	Bilhaur (Sc)	IND	20,000	0	20,000 20 Thou+	N
3	Dhirendra Singh Gautam	Auraiya	Dibiyapur	Aazad Samaj Party (Kanshi Ram)	25,000^*	0	25,000 25 Thou+	Y

Table: Candidates with declared lowest assets

* on assets value indicates that the candidate has not provided the total in their affidavits, it has been calculated on the basis of details provided by them in the same

Candidates with high liabilities: 248(40%) candidates have declared liabilities in their affidavits. The details of top three candidates with highest liabilities are given below:

S.No.	Name	District	Constituency	Party Name	Total Assets(Rs)	Liabilities (Rs)	PAN Given
1	Yashpal Singh Yadav	Jhansi	Babina	SP	70,74,04,691 70 Crore+	13,38,63,643 13 Crore+	Y
2	Ajay Kapoor	Kanpur Nagar	Kidwai Nagar	INC	69,46,17,271 69 Crore+	9,93,54,343 9 Crore+	Y
3	Rakesh Sachan	Kanpur Dehat	Bhognipur	BJP	37,54,24,114 37 Crore+	8,17,78,692 8 Crore+	Y

Table: Top three candidates with highest liabilities

Candidates with high income as declared in the ITR*: The details of top 3 candidates with high income declared in ITR are given below:

S.No.	Name	Party Name	Constituency	District	Total Asset (Rs)	Self-Source of Income	Spouse's Source of Income	The financial year for which the last income tax return has been filed by candidate	Total income shown by candidate in ITR (Self+Spouse+Dependent) (Rs)	Self-income shown by candidate in ITR (Rs)
1	Awdhesh Kumar	BSP	Sikandra Rao	Hathras	34,56,85,987 34 Crore+	Agriculture, Business, Interest, Salary	Agriculture, Business, Interest, Salary	2020-2021	3,09,07,640 3 Crore+	2,12,57,870 2 Crore+
2	Louise Khurshid	INC	Farrukhabad	Farrukhabad	38,70,36,220 38 Crore+	MLA Pension, Agricultural	MP Pension, Legal Practice & Agricultural	2020-2021	1,89,26,290 1 Crore+	1,51,490 1 Lacs+
3	Pradeep Kumar Singh	RLD	Sadabad	Hathras	23,68,84,269 23 Crore+	Agriculture and Business	Agriculture and Business	2020-2021	1,56,74,693 1 Crore+	1,06,79,684 1 Crore+

Table: Top 3 candidates with highest income as declared in ITR

Undeclared PAN: A total of 30(5%) candidates have not declared their PAN details.

Other Background Details

Education details of candidates: 239(38%) candidates have declared their educational qualifications to be between 5^th and 12^thstandard while 357 (57%) candidates have declared having an educational qualification of graduate or above. 5 candidates are Diploma holders. 13 candidates have declared themselves to be just literate and 5 candidates are Illiterates. 4 candidates have not given their educational qualification.

Age details of candidates: 241(39%) candidates have declared their age to be between 25 to 40 years while 300 (48%) candidates have declared their age to be between 41 to 60 years. There are 81(13%) candidates who have declared their age to be between 61 to 80 years and 1 candidate has declared his age 83 years.

Gender details of candidates: 96(15%) female candidates are contesting in the Uttar Pradesh assembly election 2022 Phase III.

Recommendations of ADR

To remedy the existing problem of criminalization is to immediately act upon the plausible solutions offered by various committees, civil society and citizens. Supreme Court of India being the ultimate custodian of “Justice and Rule of Law” should reprimand political parties and politicians for their complete lack of will, reprehensible predilection and absence of required laws.

Permanent disqualification of candidates convicted for heinous crimes like murder, rape, smuggling, dacoity, kidnapping etc.

Disqualification of persons from contesting elections to the public offices against whom charges have been framed for having committed serious criminal offences punishable by imprisonment of at least 5 years, and the case is filed at least 6 months prior to the election in question.

Cancellation of tax exemptions given to the political parties who field such tainted candidates.

Bringing political parties under the Right to Information Act.

De-register and de-recognise any political party if it knowingly puts up a candidate with a tainted background.

Political parties should annually file the information on criminal antecedents of their Office Bearers and make such records available to the public, including NIL records.

Disqualification of candidates furnishing false information in the election affidavit (Form 26).

Ensure trial of cases in which the politicians are accused to be concluded in a time bound manner.

Implementation of SC judgment dated 23^rd September, 2013 (i.e provision of NOTA buttons on the EVMs) in its letter and spirit by ensuring a) if NOTA gets more votes than any of the candidates, none of the candidates should be declared elected, and a fresh election should be held; b) in the fresh election, none of the candidates in the earlier election, in which NOTA got the highest number of votes, should be allowed to contest.

Implementation of the 25^th September, 2018 and 13^th February, 2020 SC orders on 'publication of criminal cases against candidates selected by political parties along with reasons for such selection' in its letter and spirit by directing the Election Commission of India a) to list out names of such tainted candidates selected by the political parties along with such reasons for such selection C8 including diligent publication of reasons in newspapers, T.V channels, party website etc, b) strict and constant reminders by ROs to the defaulters, c) list needs to be religiously prepared and submitted to the Supreme Court after every election, d) uploading of this list on ECI’s website for public inspection, e) a suitably heavy financial penalty levied on political parties for making insufficient disclosures, invalid and common reasons, selection of candidates based on winnability and f) Officer in-charge of a political party pertaining to submission of a compliance report should also be held accountable for such a breach.

The Election Commission of India and all State Election Commissions should make it mandatory in all elections; Parliamentary, Assembly and Local Body elections to carry display boards outside each and every polling booth showing a summarised version of candidates’ affidavits. The polling booths should essentially display details of candidate’s criminal records, assets and liabilities and education qualification.

The Election Commission of India under its ‘Systematic Voters’ Education and Electoral Participation’ (SVEEP) as well as through other national campaigns on voter awareness held before every election should inform and aware the voters that (i) taking and giving cash or gifts/freebies for votes is a criminal offense, (ii) such instances should be brought to the notice of the ECI through its web application, (iii) inform voters that information on criminal records of candidates is available on the ECI website, outside polling booths and other sources that the ECI may use.

Political parties in India should be required to announce/publish the list of candidates contesting elections at least 3 months prior to elections.

Role of money and muscle power is evident from the fact that all major political parties in UP phase III elections have fielded 37% to 90% candidates who are crorepatis and 22% to 52 % candidates who have declared criminal cases against themselves. This close and alarming nexus between money power and muscle power has got so ingrained in our electoral system that the citizens are left hostage to the current situation. 38 % of the population of UP is already below the poverty line as per the NFHS 2015-16 report of NITI Aayog published in 2021. Money and muscle power hurt the principles of 'free and fair elections', 'participatory democracy' and 'level playing field'. The present circumstances therefore demand an extensive deliberation by the voters so that sanctity of elections is not ridiculed by tenacious entry of tainted candidates and candidates with abnormal multiplication of assets.