If the current trend continues, the parliamentary system of government which India has adopted will become a joke. There is need to remind our legislators that they should in the first instance discharge their main job that is legislating, keeping watch over the functioning of the Government. In democracy, the ruling party governs while the opposition speaks. These functions are going by default. If one were to closely examine this issue, the elected representatives have apparently decided to play politics instead of doing their duty or follow the oath of office they have taken.

There is no denying the fact that the problem started during the NDA days when Congress in opposition decided to boycott the proceedings of the House following the Tehelka sting operations in which they were able to show working of some bogus representatives of defense firms offering bribes for getting deals. The pitch was further raised when former home minister L.K Advani and former Human Resources minister Dr Murli Manohar Joshi were charge-sheeted in courts for their role in the demolition of Babri Masjid at Ayodhya.

This issue received another boost when UPA assumed office and NDA don the mantle of the main opposition in the Parliament. The induction of ministers like Mr. Shibu Soren, Mr. Laloo Prasad Yadav provided ample opportunity to BJP and its supporters to pay back the Congress in the same coin by raking up the issue of tainted ministers. As of now, there is no easy visible solution available to resolve the problem. The issue has become complex because the subject of taint has not been properly defined. At what stage a person becomes tainted. Is it when a FIR is registered against him? Is it when a Court convicts him? or Is it when the highest court in the country finds him guilty after all avenues of seeking justice have been exhausted?

The problem has become more complex because many leaders after their conviction at some stage were voted to power. Whose verdict should be accepted? Are legal courts the last word? Or should we go by the popular verdict in democracy? Another complication that has emerged is the change of the agencies’s (CBI) stance with the change of Government. So has the definition of taint changes with the change of Government.

Despite the lost of many precious following the demolition of Babri Masjid, the NDA-led opposition would not like the leaders involved in the Ayodhya issue to be dubbed taint. For them, the fodder scam case or case relating to disproportionate assets, where Lalu Prasad and others UPA ministers are allegedly involved, is a clear case of corruption and is totally different and cannot be put in the same category as the cases against the BJP Ministers. As time passes, the definition of criminal and taint is becoming more and more blurred. A question being asked is if a person got elected to State legislature or Parliament, how can he be prevented from holding a constitutional post? The issue of taint has to be tackled at the first stage by disqualifying all persons from contesting, in case they fall in the category of taint. In the absence of such action, agitation in the form walk-outs or making strong statements in ad outside Parliament to check criminalization of politicians makes no sense.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh has done well to ask law Minister H.R Bhardwaj to present a view on the subject and help in the search of a formula that can resolve the issue of taint and criminal. But the Law Minister at best can offer a solution only, but it will become effective only if it gets the sanctity of a law duly legislated by our Parliament. The only agency which can be depended upon to implement it has to be the Election Commission. It is the Commission which conducts elections and decides who are eligible to be elected. Once a law is enacted on this subject, there will be no reason to agitate on this subject in legislative house.