Dear Friends,
The National Election Watch and Association of Democratic Reforms (ADR) have analysed the self-sworn affidavits of 6874 out of 6944 candidates who contested in the 5 states assembly elections of Goa, Manipur, Punjab, Uttarakhand and Uttar Pradesh. 70 candidates were not analysed due to unclear affidavit available on the ECI website at the time of making this report.
Out of 6874 candidates analysed, 1916 are from National parties, 1421 are from State parties, 1829 are from registered unrecognized parties and 1708 candidates are contesting independently.
The full reports in English and Hindi can be accessed here: https://adrindia.org/content/5-states-assembly-elections-2022-analysis-criminal-background-financial-education-gender-and
|
State |
Total Contesting Candidates |
Total Number of Candidates Analysed |
|
Goa |
301 |
301 |
|
Manipur |
265 |
265 |
|
Punjab |
1304 |
1276 |
|
Uttarakhand |
632 |
626 |
|
Uttar Pradesh |
4442 |
4406 |
|
Total |
6944 |
6874 |
Summary and Highlights

|
Party |
Total Contesting Candidates |
Total Number of Analysed Candidates |
candidates with declared Criminal Cases |
% of candidates with declared criminal cases |
candidates with declared serious criminal cases |
% of candidates with declared serious criminal cases |
No. of Crorepatis |
Percentage of Crorepati Candidates |
|
National Parties |
1927 |
1916 |
657 |
34% |
467 |
24% |
1372 |
72% |
|
State Parties |
1431 |
1421 |
555 |
39% |
413 |
29% |
772 |
54% |
|
Registered Unrecognized Party |
1855 |
1829 |
253 |
14% |
200 |
11% |
345 |
19% |
|
Independent |
1731 |
1708 |
229 |
13% |
182 |
11% |
347 |
20% |
|
Total |
6944 |
6874 |
1694 |
25% |
1262 |
18% |
2836 |
41% |
Table: Party Category Wise Details

Criminal Background
(a) Uttar Pradesh 18 % to 65 %
(b) Uttarakhand 17 % to 33 %
(c) Goa 23 % to 46 %
(d) Manipur 13 % to 29 %
(e) Punjab 11 % to 68 %
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 and not only based on the winnability factor. 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.

|
S.No. |
State |
Total Number of Candidates Analysed |
Number of Candidates with Declared Criminal Cases |
% of candidates with declared criminal cases |
Number of Candidates with Declared Serious Criminal Cases |
% of candidates with declared serious criminal cases |
|
1 |
Goa |
301 |
77 |
26% |
53 |
18% |
|
2 |
Manipur |
265 |
53 |
20% |
41 |
15% |
|
3 |
Punjab |
1276 |
315 |
25% |
218 |
17% |
|
4 |
Uttarakhand |
626 |
107 |
17% |
61 |
10% |
|
5 |
Uttar Pradesh |
4406 |
1142 |
26% |
889 |
20% |
|
Total |
6874 |
1694 |
25% |
1262 |
18% |
|
State wise number of candidates with declared cases related to
|
S.No. |
State |
No. of Candidates with declared cases related to murder |
No. of Candidates with declared cases related to attempt to murder |
No. of Candidates with declared cases related to crime against women |
|
1 |
Goa |
0 |
7 |
12 |
|
2 |
Manipur |
2 |
7 |
5 |
|
3 |
Punjab |
4 |
33 |
15 |
|
4 |
Uttarakhand |
1 |
3 |
6 |
|
5 |
Uttar Pradesh |
37 |
159 |
69 |
|
Total |
44 |
209 |
107 |
|


|
Party Name |
Total number of candidates analyzed |
candidates with declared Criminal Cases |
% of candidates with declared criminal cases |
candidates with declared serious criminal cases |
% of candidates with declared serious criminal cases |
|
Independent |
1708 |
229 |
13% |
182 |
11% |
|
INC |
674 |
228 |
34% |
149 |
22% |
|
BJP |
615 |
232 |
38% |
172 |
28% |
|
AAP |
570 |
144 |
25% |
90 |
16% |
|
BSP |
473 |
166 |
35% |
128 |
27% |
|
SP |
417 |
234 |
56% |
171 |
41% |
|
SAD |
96 |
65 |
68% |
60 |
63% |
|
UKD |
42 |
7 |
17% |
4 |
10% |
|
NPP |
38 |
5 |
13% |
3 |
8% |
|
RLD |
37 |
19 |
51% |
17 |
46% |
|
Punjab Lok Congress Party |
27 |
3 |
11% |
2 |
7% |
|
AITC |
26 |
6 |
23% |
4 |
15% |
|
Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party |
19 |
11 |
58% |
11 |
58% |
|
Apna Dal (Soneylal) |
17 |
6 |
35% |
4 |
24% |
|
Maharashtrawadi Gomantak |
13 |
6 |
46% |
3 |
23% |
|
NPF |
10 |
0 |
0% |
0 |
0% |
|
Goa Forward Party |
3 |
1 |
33% |
0 |
0% |
|
Others |
2089 |
332 |
16% |
262 |
13% |
|
Total |
6874 |
1694 |
25% |
1262 |
18% |
*Red Alert Constituencies are those which have 3 or more candidates with criminal cases contesting elections.
|
S.No |
State |
Number of Constituency |
Number of Red Alert Constituencies |
Percentage of Red Alert Constituencies |
|
1 |
Goa |
40 |
12 |
30% |
|
2 |
Manipur |
60 |
5 |
8% |
|
3 |
Punjab |
117 |
57 |
49% |
|
4 |
Uttarakhand |
70 |
13 |
19% |
|
5 |
Uttar Pradesh |
403 |
226 |
56% |
|
Total |
690 |
313 |
45% |
|

|
S.No. |
State |
Total number of Candidates Analysed |
Number of Crorepati Candidates |
Percentage of Crorepati candidates |
|
1 |
Goa |
301 |
187 |
62% |
|
2 |
Manipur |
265 |
143 |
54% |
|
3 |
Punjab |
1276 |
521 |
41% |
|
4 |
Uttarakhand |
626 |
252 |
40% |
|
5 |
Uttar Pradesh |
4406 |
1733 |
39% |
|
Total |
6874 |
2836 |
41% |
|

|
Party Name |
Total number of candidates analyzed |
Number of Crorepati Candidates |
Percentage of Crorepati candidates |
|
Independent |
1708 |
347 |
20% |
|
INC |
674 |
423 |
63% |
|
BJP |
615 |
534 |
87% |
|
AAP |
570 |
248 |
44% |
|
BSP |
473 |
349 |
74% |
|
SP |
417 |
312 |
75% |
|
SAD |
96 |
89 |
93% |
|
UKD |
42 |
12 |
29% |
|
NPP |
38 |
27 |
71% |
|
RLD |
37 |
32 |
86% |
|
Punjab Lok Congress Party |
27 |
16 |
59% |
|
AITC |
26 |
17 |
65% |
|
Suheldev Bharatiya Samaj Party |
19 |
13 |
68% |
|
Apna Dal (Soneylal) |
17 |
12 |
71% |
|
Maharashtrawadi Gomantak |
13 |
9 |
69% |
|
NPF |
10 |
8 |
80% |
|
Goa Forward Party |
3 |
2 |
67% |
|
Others |
2089 |
386 |
18% |
|
Total |
6874 |
2836 |
41% |

|
S.No. |
State |
Total number of Candidates Analysed |
Average Assets (Rs) |
|
1 |
Goa |
301 |
Rs
6,48,71,079 |
|
2 |
Manipur |
265 |
Rs
2,55,00,386 |
|
3 |
Punjab |
1276 |
Rs
4,31,89,176 |
|
4 |
Uttarakhand |
626 |
Rs
2,74,62,516 |
|
5 |
Uttar Pradesh |
4406 |
Rs
2,87,17,557 |
|
Total |
6874 |
Rs
3,27,48,658 |
|
Contact Details
|
Uttar Pradesh Election Watch |
|||
|
Mr. Sanjay Singh |
Dr Lenin |
Mr.Anil Sharma |
Mr. Mahesh Anand |
|
Punjab Election Watch |
Uttarakhand Election Watch |
Goa Election Watch |
||
|
Mr. Jaskirat
Singh |
Parvinder Singh
Kittna |
Mr. BP Maithani Coordinator |
Mr. Manoj Dhyani Coordinator |
Mr. Bhasker Assoldekar Coordinator |
Association for Democratic Reforms/National Election Watch
|
Media and Journalist Helpline
Email: a...@adrindia.org |
Maj.Gen. Anil Verma (Retd) Head Association for Democratic Reforms, National Election Watch 011 4165 4200, a...@adrIndia.org, |
Prof Jagdeep Chhokar IIM Ahmedabad (Retd.) Founder Member, Association for Democratic Reforms, National Election Watch |
Prof Trilochan Sastry IIM Bangalore Founder Member, Association for Democratic Reforms, National Election Watch |