ADR’s latest analysis of disclosures for candidates in five state assembly elections revealed that 191 of 1,405 candidates with criminal cases failed to provide the required explanations. The watchdog examined 8,848 candidates across Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and the Union Territory of Puducherry, finding that 3,539 were selected by parties and 1,405 declared criminal cases in their affidavits.
Of those 1,405 candidates, parties published the mandatory Format C‑7 disclosures for 1,214, leaving 191—about 14 percent—without any record of why they were chosen. Tamil Nadu had the largest gap, with 72 missing disclosures, followed by West Bengal (55), Kerala (27), Puducherry (12) and Assam (10).
The C‑7 form is intended to inform voters not only of a candidate’s criminal record but also the party’s rationale for selecting them and why a candidate without such a background could not be fielded. In 2020, the Supreme Court directed parties to publish these reasons within 72 hours of selection, basing them on qualifications, achievements and merit rather than “winnability.” The Election Commission later required parties to post the information on their websites, social media and in newspapers.
ADR noted that many parties used identical or repetitive wording in their disclosures, citing generic factors such as reputation, social work, experience, popularity, qualifications and suitability. Similar phrasing was also employed to explain why non‑criminal candidates were not chosen. The report cautioned that some disclosures may have been posted elsewhere and therefore were not captured in ADR’s records.
