Archive · 11 Sep 2026
ADR Finds 191 Missing Criminal Candidate Disclosures in 2026 Polls
The Association for Democratic Reforms studied candidates in five state elections and Puducherry.
Many candidates had declared criminal cases in their election affidavits.
Political parties are supposed to explain why they chose these candidates.
These explanations are recorded in a form called Form C-7.
ADR found that explanations were missing for 191 of 1,405 candidates with declared criminal cases.
Some parties did provide explanations, but ADR said many used the same or very similar words.
The Supreme Court says parties should explain their choices using qualifications, achievements and merit, not just a candidate’s chance of winning.
ADR also said some disclosures may have been published in places that were not included in its records.
ADR found that 191 of 1,405 candidates with declared criminal cases lacked required Form C-7 disclosures.
The study examined 3,539 candidates fielded by 51 parties across Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Puducherry.
Tamil Nadu had the most missing disclosures with 72, followed by West Bengal with 55 and Kerala with 27.
Puducherry had the highest proportion of missing disclosures, with 27 of 39 candidates lacking Form C-7 details.
ADR said published explanations often used repetitive reasons such as popularity, social work, experience and qualifications.
- Who
- The Association for Democratic Reforms analysed disclosures involving 3,539 candidates selected by 51 political parties.
- What
- The study found that required Form C-7 explanations were unavailable for 191 candidates with declared criminal cases, while many published explanations were repetitive.
- When
- The elections were held in 2026, and the Supreme Court’s relevant direction was issued in 2020.
- Where
- The elections covered Assam, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and the Union Territory of Puducherry.
- Why
- Form C-7 disclosures are intended to explain why parties selected candidates with criminal cases instead of candidates without criminal antecedents.
ADR’s Transparency Concerns
Parties’ Disclosure-Record Caveat
Missing explanations
ADR’s Transparency Concerns
ADR said parties failed to make required explanations public for 191 of 1,405 candidates with declared criminal cases.
Parties’ Disclosure-Record Caveat
ADR acknowledged that some parties may have published disclosures elsewhere, so those documents may not have appeared in its records.
Specificity of reasons
ADR’s Transparency Concerns
ADR said many disclosures used repetitive or identical wording instead of candidate-specific explanations.
Parties’ Disclosure-Record Caveat
The published explanations cited factors including public reputation, social work, grassroots support, experience, popularity, qualifications and suitability for the seat.
- Candidates contested
- 8,848 candidates contested the five state elections and the Puducherry election.
- Candidates analysed
- ADR analysed 3,539 candidates fielded by 51 political parties.
- Declared criminal cases
- 1,405 analysed candidates had declared criminal cases in their election affidavits.
- Available disclosures
- Parties published Form C-7 disclosures for 1,214 candidates, or 86% of those with declared criminal cases.
- Missing disclosures
- No Form C-7 disclosure was available for 191 candidates, or 14% of those with declared criminal cases.
- Largest gap
- Tamil Nadu had 72 missing disclosures, followed by West Bengal with 55.
- Puducherry proportion
- In Puducherry, 27 of 39 candidates with declared criminal cases lacked a disclosure.
- Publication requirement
- The Supreme Court directed parties in 2020 to publish selection reasons within 72 hours; the Election Commission later required publication on websites, social media and in newspapers.
