A new ADR report shows that political parties failed to disclose the criminal backgrounds of 191 candidates in the 2026 state assembly elections, breaching the Supreme Court‑mandated Form C7 requirement. The omission raises serious concerns about electoral transparency across five key states.
- Out of 3,539 candidates examined, details for 191 with pending criminal cases were not published.
- Only 1,214 of the 1,405 candidates who declared criminal cases provided the required Form C7 justification.
- Major parties—including BJP, Congress and several regional outfits—fell short of compliance.
The Association for Democratic Reforms (ADR) analysed Form C7 disclosures for candidates contesting the 2026 assembly elections in Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Puducherry. Form C7, ordered by the Supreme Court, obliges parties to explain why a candidate with pending criminal cases was chosen over a cleaner alternative. ADR found that while 1,214 candidates had explanations, 191 remained undocumented.
The Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) omitted reasons for eight out of 302 candidates with criminal cases, and the Indian National Congress failed to disclose for 13 of its 202 candidates. In contrast, the Trinamool Congress provided full details for all 116 candidates (113 in West Bengal and three in Assam). In Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, the Vijay-led TVK left 29 of 103 candidates undisclosed, and the DMK omitted details for 22 of 78.
State‑wise compliance varied sharply. Puducherry recorded the lowest rate, with only 12 of 39 candidates with criminal cases offering disclosures. Tamil Nadu saw 72 candidates (15% of the total with cases) missing details, while West Bengal had 55 undocumented candidates. Kerala and Assam reported 27 and 10 missing entries respectively.
Even where disclosures were made, parties relied on a narrow set of justifications—labeling candidates as popular social workers, grassroots leaders, experienced politicians, or individuals with strong public support. This repetitive narrative raises doubts about the depth of the parties’ vetting processes.
Why This Matters
BozokMedia analysis shows that systematic non‑disclosure erodes voter confidence and contravenes the Supreme Court’s vision of clean politics, potentially influencing election outcomes across five crucial states.
"Voters have a fundamental right to know the criminal background of those who seek to represent them," says political science professor Dr. Aruna Singh.
Frequently Asked Questions
Question 1: What legal consequences can arise from non‑compliance with Form C7?
Answer: The Supreme Court has made the form mandatory; the Election Commission can impose penalties, including cancellation of candidature, for violations.
Question 2: Will this report trigger reforms for future elections?
Answer: By highlighting gaps in transparency, the report pressures regulators to enforce stricter compliance, potentially leading to cleaner candidate selections in subsequent polls.
